Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Fairey Rotodyne (Development)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in the development under the auspices of his Department of the combined airliner and helicopter, the Fairey Rotodyne ; and what are its chief characteristics.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Rotodyne is propelled in forward cruising flight by two Napier Eland turbo prop engines which are mounted in short fixed wings. Lift for vertical flight and hovering is provided by a rotor which is powered by tip jet units drawing compressed air from the main engines. In cruising flight the rotor free wheels and the lift is shared with the fixed wings. The Rotodyne, when developed, is expected to carry about forty passengers over stage lengths of 350–400 miles, at a cruising speed of about 170 miles an hour.
Progress continues with the design and construction of the two prototypes ordered by my Department and the first is now nearing completion.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister give any information as to when it is anticipated that the Rotodyne will be available for use in inter-city travel?

Mr. Maudling: It would be unwise to predict when it will appear actually in operation on routes, but I hope that the first prototype will fly reasonably early next year.

Test Explosions, Australia (Delays)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Supply how many times recent test explosions in Australia were postponed on

account of meteorological reports; and what was the total period of delay.

Mr. Maudling: Two of the four test explosions had to be postponed on account of unfavourable meteorological conditions. In one case the delay amounted to sixteen days and in the other three days.

Mr. Parkin: Have any calculations been made as to what delay might be necessary in more thickly populated areas, such as Europe, before it would be safe to the users to launch such weapons? Is it not possible that these weapons may be the last to be used instead of the first and thus give Field Marshal Montgomery plenty of time to ask questions before letting them off?

Mr. Maudling: The Question refers to test explosions. I cannot conceive of anyone carrying out test explosions in thickly populated areas of Western Europe.

Aircraft Exports

Mr. Barter: asked the Minister of Supply how many aircraft, civil and military, it is anticipated will be exported from this country during 1956.

Mr. Maulding: It is expected that a total of 727 aircraft will be exported during 1956. Inclusive of aircraft engines, and aircraft parts and equipment, this will represent a value of some £105 million, or an increase of 64 per cent. over the corresponding figure for last year. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree this is a most creditable achievement on the part of the aircraft industry.

Mr. Barter: Can my right hon. Friend say how this compares with our Continental competitors?

Mr. Maudling: The best calculation I can make is that our industry exports rather more in a fortnight than any Continental country does in a whole year.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what proportion of the total exports of the aircraft industry relates to military aircraft supplied under the United States Foreign Aid Programme.

Mr. Maudling: During 1956 the aircraft industry has not exported and is unlikely to export any military aircraft procured by the United States Government under their Foreign Aid Programme.

Mr. Beswick: Although what the Minister has said is technically correct, is it not also true to say that many of the exports to foreign countries have been paid for by the Americans directly to the importing countries? When one subtracts this quantity, does it not put a very different light on the export figures about which the right hon. Gentleman is rather boastful?

Mr. Maudling: I know that the hon. Member delights in minimising the achievements of British industry, but the fact is that none of the exports this year is based on offshore purchases. It may be, of course, that the Americans have helped financially some of the countries ordering some British aircraft, but if that is so, those countries are perfectly entitled to order from elsewhere, as the help is in no way tied to British machines.

Mr. Beswick: May I put the question this way : is the Minister satisfied that the quantity of aircraft which has been exported and paid for, directly or indirectly, by the United States Government is not one reason why the industry has been overloaded, with the consequent result of so many delays and disappointments to British operators?

Mr. Maudling: The size of export orders has contributed to the load on the industry which, I recognise, has been excessive. But we are all delighted that the load of export orders has been so large.

R.A.F. Officers

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply how many Royal Air Force officers are attached to his Department and establishments.

Mr. Maudling: Six hundred and forty-one, including 456 at establishments.

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the shortage of officers of this experience in the Royal Air Force, will the Minister look carefully to see whether it is not a fact that some of these experienced officers are being used on projects which merely duplicate work done by our N.A.T.O. Allies, and especially the United States?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air for making these very valuable officers available to me. I have very

much in mind the point raised by the hon. Member about duplication with our Allies and can assure him that we are making every effort we can to avoid duplication of weapon development with our Allies. It is, however, a fairly wide question which the hon. Member has raised.

Suez Canal Dispute (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply what extra expenditure he has incurred as a result of military, naval and aerial preparations taken as a result of the Suez dispute.

Mr. Maudling: None, apart from expenditure on stores procured for the Service Departments on repayment.

Ordnance Factories, Radway Green and Swynnerton

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply how many workers have been made redundant in the last three months, and how many workers it is proposed to make redundant in the next three months, at the Royal Ordnance factories at Radway Green and Swynnerton ; and what steps he is taking to prevent unemployment in these areas.

Mr. Maudling: No workers have been made redundant at Radway Green during the past three months. I expect that there will be a redundancy of 380 in total in the months of November and January and of 190 in February. At Swynnerton 15 part-time employees have been discharged in the past three months. I expect that there will be none in the next three. Every effort will be made locally, in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, to help those who have been discharged to find other employment.

Mr. Swingler: Has there been full consultation with the union at Radway Green about this fairly large-scale redundancy which is proposed in the next three months? Will the Minister give an assurance that in all such cases, before large numbers of men are thrown on to the labour market in this way, there will be consultation with the unions to provide alternative employment for the men?

Mr. Maudling: Our relations with the trade unions are good. This redundancy has been notified to the trade union side


of the Ministry of Supply Joint Industrial Council, and I understand it is to be discussed at the next Council meeting on 31st October.

Britannia Aircraft

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Supply the total amount of money that has been spent by his Department on the development of the airliner Britannia, and the Proteus engine.

Mr. Maudling: Expenditure by the Ministry of Supply to date on the development of the Britannia series of aircraft, including the cost of installation engines, is about £6·5 million, and on the Proteus engine, about £11·5 million. Recoveries are made on account of this expenditure by levies imposed on the sales of production aircraft, engines and spares to customers other than Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hunter: When is the country likely to get some value for the millions of pounds which have been spent by the aircraft manufacturers on the Britannia? Is the Minister aware that the Britannia is not yet in service and that B.O.A.C. has been forced to spend millions of pounds on American jet airliners in order to maintain the Corporation's services?

Mr. Maudling: The recently announced decision to purchase American jet airliners has, of course, no relation to the question whether the Britannia is in service. The levies on non-Government sales to date on the Britannia amount to £3½ million, which is over half the expenditure.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the recently announced decision that B.O.A.C. should be allowed to buy American aircraft, and in view of the public money going into this industry, does not the Minister think it is high time that we had an inquiry into it to find out why there is no long-range British aircraft in sight twelve years after the war, which B.O.A.C. can buy for their world airways?

Mr. Maudling: I think that any suggestion for an inquiry into an industry exporting at the rate of £100 million a year in the most competitive market in the world is wide of the mark.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend tell, the House when he

expects the aircraft to be in service, or at any rate what progress is being made with the modifications?

Mr. Maudling: I have learned from experience that it is unwise to make exact prophecies about technical details which no one can predict. A great deal of effort is being put into solving the difficulty of the icing of the engines, which I think no one could reasonably have been expected to predict would occur.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the Minister please address himself to my question? No one is complaining of the medium-range aeroplanes being exported. They have been a great success. We on this side of the House are anxious because there is no long-range aircraft that British industry has yet produced. After the hundreds of millions of pounds spent, is it not time that we saw some result?

Mr. Maudling: I have no doubt that the long-range Britannia will be operating across the Atlantic before the Americans' long-range jet.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Land Drainage

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions he has issued to the river boards following the flooding of agricultural land as a result of the heavy rainfall of recent months.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): My Department keeps in very close touch with the river boards and no special guidance was necessary.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that the river boards can do a great deal to improve the position regarding agricultural drainage and avoid the possibility of widespread floods? Could he not prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has imposed the credit squeeze upon these river boards, to realise that their work is coming to a standstill and release some funds to them?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of this work, but I cannot agree with his


statement about the work having nearly come to a stop. It has only been partially reduced and is proceeding now at a high rate. I am afraid that so long as the credit restrictions go on we are bound to look at each application pretty sternly. I do allow any scheme required on the ground of public health or safety, and I also look sympathetically at schemes which it is likely would avoid considerable damage to crops.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now put the recommendations of the Heneage Committee into operation.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on 30th April last.

Mr. Hughes: Has not this report been in the hands of the Minister since 1951? Has he not now had enough time to consider it and decide whether he will implement it in whole or in part? Is it not a fact that if these recommendations of the Committee were implemented they would do a good deal to improve the agricultural drainage of this country, and a good deal to mitigate the sort of loss which was suffered during the recent flooding?

Mr. Amory: I think the short answer is "Yes." I believe it would, but unfortunately I have not yet succeeded in getting general agreement upon the main recommendation which would enable me to feel justified in proceeding to legislation. But I am seeing whether there is some limited progress which I can make in the fields where there is most agreement.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to improve land drainage arising from his inspection of flooded land in Yorkshire.

Mr. Amory: Responsibility for land drainage improvement work rests with the drainage authorities for the area. My Department is in touch with the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, which is proposing to convene a meeting of all concerned in the Goole area to discuss possible ways of effecting improvements in the drainage system.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister give his full co-operation and encouragement, financially as well as in every other way, to an improvement of the land drainage in that area?

Mr. Amory: I came away from my visit to that area impressed with the need for progress there. I shall look sympathetically at any proposals which are made.

Harvest Losses

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give an estimate of the effect upon agricultural production of the heavy rainfall of recent months.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the harvest; and what proposals he has for compensating farmers for the damage to crops by rain and floods.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a full statement on the effects of the weather on this year's harvest.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the loss resulting from the bad harvest.

Mr. Amory: The corn harvest in England and Wales has now been completed. There has been considerable damage as a result of the very wet weather, and the moisture content of grain has been high. But though the harvest has been exceptionally difficult and expensive to farmers, the final position is not so serious as seemed likely early in September. A number of individual farmers will, however, have suffered severe losses.
Reports from my local officers indicate that while yields will be substantially less than last year's record yields, they will be about the same as the average of the previous five years for wheat, barley and rye, but below average for oats and mixed corn. Potatoes are expected to yield about the same weight per acre as the average for the previous five years, although there has been damage by blight. The yield of sugar beet is expected to be above average.
A report reviewing agricultural conditions as at 1st November will be issued shortly as a Press notice. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
I am not yet in a position to estimate the financial effects on the industry due to the weather. The weather is one of the normal hazards of farming in this country, and it is not the policy of the Government to compensate farmers for damage caused by it. The Government however readily provided such help as lay within their province, for example by reopening national grain silos, arranging for special concessions in regard to call-up and Service leave and offering short term credit facilities under the Goods and Services Scheme.
Cereal prices so far are well above the level of the two previous years.

Mr. Hughes: Did not the Minister say when he visited Lancashire that the results of the harvest would be much better if agricultural drainage were improved and extended? Does he not agree that if the river boards were given greater funds in order to do this work, it would improve the agricultural drainage and therefore avoid this sort of loss in future?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward very much to the time when these restrictions on capital expenditure on drainage improvement can be removed.

Air Commodore Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask whether he is aware that his recent statement outside this House, that only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the harvest has not been gathered in, gave quite a wrong impression of the state of the farming industry, as many farmers have suffered severely? Will my right hon. Friend not make misleading statements outside this House, because farmers have been through a most difficult harvest period?

Mr. Amory: I must correct my hon. and gallant Friend. That was not a statement made by me outside this House but a factual statement of the position as best it might be estimated by my Department, which periodically makes these factual statements. To the best of my knowledge, the statement is perfectly accurate, and I have nothing to withdraw from it.

My own public statements made outside this House, which have covered the whole of the estimated results of the harvest and not only yields, have, I think, been extremely sympathetic and have covered exactly the line of the statement I have made this afternoon.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister appreciate the very hard work which has been put in by the farmers and farm-workers in order to get in the harvest? In his statement about the position of the potato crop, has he taken into account the very bad quality of potatoes now being lifted—not so much the quantity, but the quality?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I have done that. If the hon. Member will look at my statement, he will see that I referred to blight, which, unfortunately, is quite widespread. If it had not been for that, the potato crop would have been an exceptionally good one this year. As regards the hardships suffered by the farmers, I have on several occasions called the attention of the country at large to that fact, and during the Recess I tried to visit as many different parts of the country as I possibly could during the course of the harvest.

Mr. Willey: From his earlier remarks, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to imply that there are two kinds of statement issuing from himself and his Department—statements from his Department which are factual and are to be relied upon, and statements by himself for which he accepts responsibility but which are not to be relied upon?

Mr. Amory: No, I think the only difference is that perhaps my Department's estimates of the harvest were purely factual while my own orations upon this subject have contained a little more colour than would have been appropriate in Departmental statements.

Farmers (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to make provision for easier credit for farmers.

Mr. Amory: I have satisfied myself by recent inquiries that the banks are continuing to consider sympathetically the credit needs of farmers, particularly of those who have suffered from the weather.


I have also arranged for county agricultural executive committees to give what help they can to those in need for that reason by supplying essential goods on as favourable credit terms as possible under the Agriculture Goods and Services Scheme. I have no fresh proposals to make at the present time.

Mr. Champion: Will the Minister remember in this connection that what is really required is cheaper credit, particularly at this time, when it is quite obvious that many farmers will have to transfer their production from milk to some other commodity which will require credit?

Mr. Amory: I would agree with the hon. Member that we all like borrowing our money as cheaply as possible and that it is an important item in our costs. But, whatever the borrowed money costs, it is an item which is taken into consideration at the Annual Price Review.

National Stud (Foal's Death)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cause of death of a foal sent by the National Stud to the Doncaster sales.

Mr. Amory: A post mortem examination proved inconclusive on the cause of death, but there was no trace of infectious disease or poisoning.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the management of this Stud? Was not it a fact that two or three years ago some yearlings died mysteriously at Doncaster sales? In view of the fact that there are some very valuable animals in this Stud, can the Minister say whether proper care and attention is being paid, at the top, to the animals which the Stud has in its charge?

Mr. Amory: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am completely satisfied with the management of the National Stud.

Quarantine Restrictions (Rabies)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider the adoption of inoculation against rabies in place of the present method of quarantine for dogs, etc.

Mr. Amory: Inoculation would not be a safe substitute for quarantine since it

cannot be relied upon to confer complete immunity against rabies.

Sir I. Fraser: Does not my right hon. Friend think that he and his Department are being very old-fashioned about this? Do not many countries rely, with virtual security, upon inoculation?

Mr. Amory: No; I am afraid that I could not agree with my hon. Friend there. Vaccinated dogs have contracted rabies on a number of occasions, and I think it is significant that the World Health Organisation quite recently recommended that those countries which are at present free of rabies should not rely solely upon vaccination but should go in for the policy which we follow, namely, of quarantine.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will my right hon. Friend undertake never to relinquish these regulations about quarantine until much greater strides have been made with inoculation? Will he also remember that there is too much of a tendency for the dog to be regarded as a "sacred cow"?

Mr. Amory: Without following my hon. Friend too far with the analogy he made at the end of his supplementary question, I would say that I agree that this is a matter upon which it would be really silly to take risks. The amount of suffering which could result from a single outbreak of rabies in a dog is very considerable indeed, and I do not intend to take the smallest risks in this matter.

Vibrio Coli

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider taking steps to have vibrio coli classified as a notifiable disease.

Mr. Amory: I am advised that this particular form of diarrhoea in pigs cannot readily be distinguished from others, and, indeed, it is only after elaborate tests that a clear positive diagnosis can be established. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by making it notifiable.

Mr. Gough: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the experts know very little about this disease? Will he bear in mind the experience of one of my constituents who, not long ago, suffered


a catastrophic financial loss owing to the advice given by my right hon. Friend's technical friends to slaughter the whole of his herd because they knew nothing about vibrio coli?

Mr. Amory: As far as the first part of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, I agree that there is still a lack of detailed information about this disease, but as regards the second part, I could not acknowledge for a minute that the serious loss caused to my hon. Friend's constituent—and I agree that it was a serious loss, and I am very sorry for it—was in any way due to advice received from my Department.

Mr. Gough: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this may be a new and terribly serious disease which has come into this country? Will not he at least tell the House that his officials are giving it the fullest possible consideration?

Mr. Amory: I gladly do that. A great deal of work is being done upon this disease in several of our institutes in this country.

Special Price Review

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding his refusal of Sir James Turner's request for a special farm price review.

Mr. Amory: In accordance with the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, the Government had to consider whether the effect of the cost change arising from the recent wage award in England and Wales was not only sudden and substantial but also of sufficient importance to justify a special review of farm prices. If a special review had been held and full recoupment given for the amount of the wage increase, a sum of about £5 million would have been involved, which would have given an increase of about ½ per cent. in the guaranteed price level of all the review commodities. This would have affected livestock products for the six months to the end of March, 1957, and all crops of the 1957 harvest.
There would have been no increase on the guaranteed price for cereal crops of this year's harvest. Although the wage increase was only for England and Wales, the price increases would have had to be

for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government also took account of the fact that the effects of the wage increase would be considered along with other cost changes at the 1957 Annual Review, and we concluded that in the prevailing circumstances of the national economy a special review would not be justified.

Mr. Crouch: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the discontent which exists among the farming community because of that refusal? I understand that it will be taken into consideration at the February Review. Would not it have been much wiser not to have had another outburst by the farmers who, taking them by and large, are our friends?

Mr. Amory: As my hon. Friend knows, it is never very easy to satisfy the whole of the farming community. In this case, it really would not have been a sensible way of trying to help the losses arising from the bad harvest this year because, apart from the other reasons I have given, it would have been spread so very thinly. I can confirm that an increase in wages, like any other increase in costs, is certainly a factor to be taken into consideration at the next price review, and will be so taken into consideration.

Pigs and Bacon (Report)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet considered the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon ; and if he accepts the Commission's recommendations for the setting up of a pig industry development authority and for changes in the marketing arrangements for bacon pigs.

Mr. Amory: The Report has now been discussed with the many interests concerned and the Commission's recommendations are being studied in the light of the views which have been expressed before a final decision is taken on future policy for pig production and marketing.

Mr. Collins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to make his decision known, and will he give an assurance that in any case there will be adequate notice of any changes he proposes to make and an opportunity of debating them in this House?

Mr. Amory: My consideration is taking place now. I would hope that within the next two or three months we shall have reached some views on this matter—[Laughter.]—we shall have reached a stage where we shall be ready to take some decisions in this matter. I am quite certain there will be opportunities of discussing this very difficult, controversial, but important matter before anything is put in hand.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the National Farmers' Union has definitely condemned the recommendations contained in this Report, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will ask the N.F.U. to put forward alternative proposals before he himself comes to a decision?

Mr. Amory: There have been so very many different proposals made in the matter, most of which cancel themselves out, that I would be very glad of any considered proposals. Of course, I should attach great weight to the proposals and views put forward by the leaders of the industry.

Bread Subsidy

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider his decision to remove the bread subsidy in view of the hardship caused by the recent increase in bread prices.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. In current conditions of full employment and high earnings, these general subsidies cannot be justified.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the elementary fact that it is the poorest people who have to spend the highest percentage of their income on bread? In these circumstances, and with milk and sugar going up as well, is it not quite unreasonable to expect old-age pensioners and people earning low wages to refrain from pressing for higher pensions and wages?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says about the price of bread falling heaviest on the poorest section of the community. That is true, but that does not justify a general food subsidy to everyone in the country at the present time. The Government have shown by their actions that they are very sensible of their responsibilities to

the old-age pensioners, to those on National Assistance, to war pensioners and to other handicapped sections of the nation.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to be a little more responsible? Will he explain to the Chancellor that this is a pure redistribution of income, that we really cannot hold the cost of living by putting up the price of bread and that this is an aggravation of what we all accept as a very difficult situation facing the country?

Mr. Amory: I think that the best service which can be rendered to everyone in the country, and most particularly to those who have to live on small fixed incomes, is to end inflation and to stabilise the general price level. We are not dissatisfied with the progress being made in that direction.

Mr. Willey: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how one ends inflation by putting up the price of bread?

Mr. Amory: A contribution towards ending inflation is surely to get rid of any item of Government expenditure which cannot be fully justified in prevailing circumstances.

Sir I. Fraser: Can the Minister say by how much a week a wage would have to be raised to compensate for this proposed rise in the price of bread and milk?

Mr. Amory: As regards bread, I am informed that the 10d. loaf is now available to about 70 per cent. of the population. The increase, on the basis of a 10d. loaf, would represent about 8½d. for an average household. On the basis of a 10½d. loaf, it would be about 11½d. for an average household. For an old-age pensioner household, the increases would be 3¾d. and 5d. respectively.

Fat Cattle

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) the average return received by producers of fat cattle accepted for slaughter and at grading centres during the 27th and 28th weeks in this financial year; and what total payments would be required on the basis of present prices to bring up their returns to the average guaranteed price of £7 11s. per live cwt. for the second half of this financial year;
(2) the average return per live hundredweight to producers of fat cattle accepted at grading centres and for slaughter during the first 26 weeks of this financial year; and what total amount would be required to bring the total payments up to the average guaranteed price of £7 11s. per live cwt.

Mr. Amory: The average return on certified cattle during the first 26 weeks of the present fatstock year was 132s. 11d. per live cwt. In both weeks 27 and 28 it was 128s. per cwt. Under the present method of calculating guarantee payments there may in any twelve months period be over or under payments of the standard price, which is an average price and is not relevant to particular periods within the year.

Mr. Dye: Does the fact that the Minister has had to make an alteration in the payment system indicate that there is something wrong with the system which has been in operation in the past or something radically wrong in the marketing system where the price of fat cattle has fallen so low without having any effect on the retail price of beef?

Mr. Amory: I think we shall have an opportunity of discussing this topic in the House tomorrow evening.

Woodland Products (Report)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Report of the Watson Committee on timber marketing is to be published.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Committee set up by him to examine and report on the position as regards the conversion and marketing of home-grown timber has yet reported; and when the report will be published.

Mr. Amory: The Report, which is dated May, 1956, was sent to the Ministers jointly responsible for forestry matters early in July last. I hope that it will be published early in December.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: Is that not really a long time between the reception of the Report and its publication, because this is now becoming a very urgent matter? Could my right hon. Friend give some

assurance that the matter is receiving the urgent attention which it really deserves, not only from the point of view of the Forestry Commission, where vast sums of public money are invested, but also from the point of view of the private forester?

Mr. Amory: I agree that it is an important Report. I sent it on for printing very shortly after I received it. There has been no avoidable delay.

Softwood Plants

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his attention had been drawn to a shortage of softwood plants required by woodland owners for the current planting season ; and what action he proposes to meet this situation and to prevent it arising in following years.

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. It is too early in the season to determine the extent of the shortage or to state precisely what plants the Commission can make available from their own nurseries. The Forestry Commission is doing all that is possible to help and last season, in addition to the normal surplus, released to private woodland owners several million plants by reducing their own planting programme. Additional sowings were also made by the Commission to provide more seedlings for lining out this season and next season by the nursery trade and private estates.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that this shortage will be met next season?

Mr. Amory: The Forestry Commission is doing what it can to plant more seedlings, and over the last few years it has been urging the nursery trades to expand their output.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Food Hygiene Regulations (Shrimps)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health what further discussions have taken place with the shrimp fishing and potting industry; and what further amendments he will make in the Food Hygiene Regulations before 31st December, 1956.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Proposals for amending this Regulation were sent at the beginning of September for comment to the fishermen's associations, the local authorities and other interested bodies and persons. The replies received are being considered. It is not possible yet to say what the details of the amendment will be.

Sir I. Fraser: They will be published well before the end of the year, will they not?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot give an estimate until we receive all the replies, but, so far, the replies received to date are fairly favourable to the recommendations.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the hon. Lady realise that if they are not dealt with before the end of the year, then the old penal regulations will come into force?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I am sure that he is as desirous as we are of consulting all the bodies interested in this piece of legislation. The delay at the moment is with some of those bodies.

Mental Illness and Deficiency (Report)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health when the Royal Commission on mental health will present its Report.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency ; and when it will be published.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) on 25th October.

Mr. Evans: Has the Royal Commission finished taking evidence, and do its terms of reference allow it to make recommendations about accommodation?

Mr. Turton: The Royal Commission, as I told the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), finished taking evidence on 27th July, 1955. I should like to see the question about the scope of its remit on the Order Paper before I gave a reply.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the most disturbing conditions in our mental hospitals and the fact that the evidence was finished eighteen months ago, can the Minister say when he thinks that the Report will be made?

Mr. Turton: No, I cannot do that. It is a matter entirely for the Royal Commission. The right hon. Lady knows that the topic is very important and that this will be a vital Report. I understand that at the moment the Commission is collecting further information and pursuing certain inquiries preparatory to writing its Report. It would not be proper for me to intervene to hasten it.

Tuberculosis (Immigrants)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of tuberculosis patients undergoing treatment in this country are immigrants.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hall: Is it not a fact that this is the only country in the Commonwealth that does not demand a certificate of good health from immigrants? Would it not be helpful, possibly for both the medical services and the health of this country, if we adopted a similar regulation?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As my hon. Friend is aware, there was an investigation in 1954 when the present Minister of Labour and National Service announced that the Standing Tuberculosis Advisory Committee had advised that the position did not indicate a serious menace to the health of the country. There is no evidence that the incidence of tuberculosis is particularly high among the latest groups of immigrants who have been arriving, mainly from the West Indies, whose services we very much need.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that we attach great importance to mass radiography for the detection of tuberculosis, why does the Ministry refuse to X-ray these immigrants who live in overcrowded conditions in this country when they arrive?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The whole of this problem, including the very point


raised by the right hon. Lady, was investigated by the Standing Advisory Committee, which advised against such a procedure as recently as 1954.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Lady aware of the terrible hopelessness in displaced persons camps of people with a tuberculosis scar whom nobody will accept? Is it not something of which to be rather proud that we in this country have given homes to some of these people?

Spectacles (Safety Lenses)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health whether he will supply safety-glass spectacles to all industrial workers who have only one eye under the National Health Service without extra charge.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: These and other special glasses are available without extra charge through the hospital eye service where there is a special medical reason for providing them. My right hon. Friend has no evidence of increased risk of injury to the eye solely from lens splinters which would justify provision of these lenses on occupational grounds.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Lady not aware that many of these workers are partially disabled through the loss of one eye and, consequently, earn less than the normal wage and are not able to afford this more expensive type of spectacles at the normal charge? If they are able to get them only with a medical certificate and the remaining eye is quite good, they will not get a medical certificate and will have to pay the full price for these safety spectacles.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Unsplinterable or plastic lenses are also available at the patient's choice under the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service at a charge of about 12s. a lens in addition to the normal charge of 10s. Cases in which damage to the eye arises from splintering of the spectacle lens alone are practically unknown.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: As one who has only one eye, may I assure the hon. Lady that although industrial earnings may not suffer, the industrial worker feels bound to give considerably more protection to the one eye remaining than a man would normally give to both his eyes?

Hearing Aids

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health the reason for the delay in the supply of the Medresco hearing aid from the time of recommendation for the provision of the aid and its receipt by the applicant ; and what are the prospects for an early issue of the transistor type.

Mr. Turton: Over the country as a whole there is little delay, but a few centres cannot offer immediate appointments in all cases. This may be due to the volume of work and inability to increase staff or accommodation. I hope the clinical trials of the transistor aid, which must precede the ordering of larger quantities, will take place about the end of the year.

Mr. Evans: In view of the long time that this service has been in operation, is it not rather surprising that in some areas the period of waiting from the date of application for the aid and the examination of the patient to delivery is as much as six months? Is the Minister also aware that only recently I sent him a case in which the period of waiting was even longer than that? Can he give us some sort of indication about how far it is possible to speed up the service? Will these transistor aids be reserved first of all for children of school age?

Mr. Turton: With regard to the first supplementary question, the position is very satisfactory when compared with that of a few years ago. Tremendous progress has been made. Out of 66 centres, at 58 the delay from the date of application is four months or less. It is true that the hon. Member has referred to me a case dealing with King's College Hospital, where there are peculiar difficulties owing to lack of staff and accommodation and a great volume of work. We are doing our best to improve the service even more.
With regard to the second supplementary question, when the transistor aid is available very young deaf children will receive priority.

Radiological Protection Service

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will make a statement on the future of the Radiological Protection Service for industrial workers ;
(2) what action he is taking to improve the film monitoring service for industrial workers operated by the Radiological Protection Service.

Mr. Turton: As far as I am aware, the service is operating satisfactorily, but I am discussing its future with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Neave: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need to give preferential treatment to the return of films showing an unusually high exposure in such cases?

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. Normally the film comes back within four or five days, unless the developed film shows exceptional exposure. In those cases we give preferential treatment to the films so that correspondence ensues immediately and, if necessary, the matter is taken up in an interview.

Elderly Persons (Housing Grants)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Health if he is ready to propose amendments to the National Assistance Act, 1948, to make it possible for him to pay a grant to voluntary associations who, having acquired premises for housing elderly people, wish to extend them at a later date.

Mr. Turton: Legislation to amend Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, is not at present contemplated.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister think it is anomalous that he should have power to grant money to acquire premises to house elderly people but no power to give a grant to extend the premises once acquired? Is it not a power he might very well seek?

Mr. Turton: The whole basis of Exchequer assistance to the finances of local authorities is under review at the present time, and it would be most untimely to make this amendment now.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Mentally Defective Children, East Suffolk

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health how many children in the area of the East Suffolk local authority are awaiting admission to suitable institutions for mental disability;

how many names are on the waiting list; what is the yearly rate of clearance from the list; and whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation available now or in the near future.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are eighteen children in the area who are on the list for admission to a hospital for mental defectives, the list containing 23 names of persons of all ages. Since 1951, the average annual rate of clearance from the list has been ten. There is a shortage of accommodation of this type, but additional beds have been and are being provided.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Lady aware of the very poignant cases which I have remitted to her? Is she satisfied that in a reasonable time there will be some alleviation of the distress of people who are very often elderly and who, in looking after growing lads approaching manhood, undergo a terrible strain?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: During recent years additional beds in this area have become available at the rate of approximately 50 a year, and work of adaptation is at present proceeding at Lothingland, which will bring another 60 beds when completed.

Mrs. Harriet Thornton

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he will state what decision has been reached in the case of Mrs. Harriet Thornton, who was certified and sent to Cane Hill Mental Hospital, Coulsdon, three and a half years ago.

Mr. Turton: On the application of her uncle, this lady was discharged to his care by order of the hospital management committee on 25th October, 1956, under Section 79 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. Under that Section a patient may be discharged upon the undertaking of a relative or friend that he or she will be properly taken care of.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that wonderful news is the end of a three and a half year nightmare? Does he also appreciate that while the highest praise is due to him for the care and attention he has given to this case, it still has unsatisfactory aspects to be cleared up?

Mr. Turton: On the same day as the lady was discharged, I wrote to the hon. Member a letter in which I dealt with a number of points which remained outstanding.

Doctors (Emolument Charges)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that in many hospitals the new scale in emolument charges will result in a substantial reduction in the net salaries of resident doctors; and if he will give instructions that these charges shall not be implemented in retrospect or until the negotiations in regard to the standard of accommodation, which are now in progress, have been completed ;
(2) if he is aware that there is still a shortage of junior hospital medical staff; and if he will take action to ameliorate this situation by abolishing emolument charges for those who are compelled to reside in the hospital in which they are employed, by improving the standard of accommodation for doctors and by providing married quarters.

Mr. Turton: While the charges payable by house officers, who are the most numerous class of resident doctors, are not altered, I am aware that for many doctors in the more senior grades the new charges are higher than those previously paid. They took effect on 1st August in accordance with a Whitley agreement, and I see no justification for suspending the operation of that agreement, much less for abolishing charges altogether. In reply to my hon. Friend's other points, I am sending him a copy of a circular on residential accommodation which was issued to hospital authorities in December, 1954.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that resident doctors have to sign a contract which does not state the amount of the emoluments charged and that they have no redress if the emoluments are increased? Furthermore, is he aware that resident doctors have to pay Income Tax on their gross salaries before the charge is deducted? My second question is whether the Minister is aware that the standard of accommodation in some hospitals is still extremely poor? Is it not wrong that doctors, who may be called upon in the middle of the night to perform a difficult operation, should have a bedroom only and no sitting room at

their disposal even after six or seven years' service?

Mr. Turton: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that these charges were agreed by the Whitley Committee and the matter must be left there. With regard to the second part, I am sure that the hospital authorities are as anxious as I am to see that the accommodation provided for resident staff should be as satisfactory as possible. That is the reason for the circular which was put out by my predecessor.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister able to give any special consideration to the case of married doctors who are required to be resident by virtue of their jobs and have to maintain a home for their wives and families away from the hospital? They are particularly hard-hit by the increased accommodation charges.

Mr. Turton: All these factors were taken into account by the Whitley Committee.

Junior Medical Staff (Negotiating Committee)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that junior hospital medical staff have no direct access to, nor negotiating powers with, his Department ; and if he will arrange for them to be represented on the Joint Negotiating Committee.

Mr. Turton: There is a joint negotiating body for all grades of hospital medical staff. The composition of the Staff Side of this body is a matter for the profession itself.

Mr. Johnson: Would not the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair that these doctors, Who are more than 50 per cent. of the hospital service and practically do the bulk of the work, are not represented on the committee and, therefore, cannot be heard?

Mr. Turton: It would be improper if I were to interfere with the composition of the Staff Side.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not the Minister taking legal advice at the highest level about the way to concede a £50 million wage claim for hospital and family doctors? What is happening about this legal advice?

Mr. Turton: That is another question.

Detention of Patients

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, amongst correspondence received by the hon. Member for Carlisle in recent weeks from patients and ex-patients of mental hospitals, there are letters from 29 apparently sane people now at liberty, and whose names and addresses have been supplied to him, alleging that they have been unjustifiably detained in mental hospitals under various sections of the Lunacy Act; and whether he will appoint a general inquiry to consider these allegations.

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend has written to me about his correspondence. Any question of illegal detention is a matter for the courts. As my hon. Friend knows, a Royal Commission is at present examining the law relating to mental health. I do not consider that an additional general inquiry would serve a useful purpose.

Dr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware that, despite what he says, there is a fear among these people that their point of view has been overlooked by the Royal Commission? Will he give an assurance that, in any further consideration that may take place as a result of the Royal Commission's Report, this point of view will be fully considered? Next, pending these wider considerations which, we hope, will take place, can my right hon. Friend take such steps as he may to curb the hasty and sometimes ill-considered removals to hospital that are taking place, which not only deprive patients of their liberty, but also fail in many cases to benefit their mental health?

Mr. Turton: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, I think it would be wise for us to await the Report of the Royal Commission to see whether it covers these cases or not. On the second part, if any hon. Member has a constituent with a complaint, I hope he will always bring the complaint to me or to the Parliamentary Secretary. On the third point, it would be wrong for me to interfere with the giving of certificates by justices. That is a matter of law with which the Minister of Health quite properly cannot interfere.

Mr. F. Harris: Is the Minister aware that there is very strong feeling on this

issue, especially on the fact that it needs only one doctor's certificate to send a person to a lunatic asylum? This is a very serious matter. I have cases of this kind in my constituency at the present time.

Mr. Turton: That will be one of the matters to be looked at by the Royal Commission.

Maternity Services, Redditch

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increasing growth of the town of Redditch, he will reconsider his decision not to provide maternity facilities within the borough; and if he will state the size to which the borough must grow before it will be allowed to have its own maternity facilities.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The decision is that of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to intervene; the size of the borough is not the only factor to be considered.

Dr. Summerskill: As there is a point of principle involved in this Question, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what maternity services have been refused to this town?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: To have a maternity hospital solely for Redditch would not justify more than a 10–12 bed unit, which would be quite uneconomical to run. As it is, between 1st July and 20th October, 92 Redditch mothers have had their confinements in Bromsgrove and three have gone to Evesham. There are additional beds at Bromsgrove which we would like to open if we have the staff. The major problem of a small unit at Redditch would be trying to staff it.

Nursing and Medical Staff (Recruitment)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the financial restrictions placed upon management committees of mental hospitals is preventing them from recruiting nursing and medical staff.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no precise evidence that financial restrictions are preventing mental hospital management committees


from recruiting essential nursing and medical staff. He will, however, be glad to look into any particular case the hon. Member has in mind if he will give him the details.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could not the Minister give a definite guarantee that, if evidence can be provided of cases where hospitals are not able to recruit the staff that is available in the area, he will not let finance stand in the way?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend and I have been round the country on many of these mental-health recruiting campaigns during this year, and there has never been any suggestion that if the staff could be obtained the hospitals would be unable to take them on for the reasons outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We have done all we can to encourage recruiting.

Casualty Services, Newcastle

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement concerning our casualty services and in particular, whether any improvement can be made on the provision of buildings at Newcastle General Hospital.

Mr. Turton: Although there is room for further improvement here as in other hospital services, the casualty services have been widely improved in recent years by re-organisation, additional staffing, and adaptation or new building. Special steps have also been taken to deal with major accidents. With regard to the second part of the question, work on the casualty department at Newcastle General Hospital is included in the regional hospital board's programme for 1958–59.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that there are very important articles in the medical Press on the subject of our casualty service and about its urgent needs? Secondly, does his reference to the Newcastle provision mean anything more than the adaptation of an existing tin hut? That really is not good enough.

Mr. Turton: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have read the article in the Medical World. It under-estimates the improvements that have taken place in recent years. With regard to the second part, I

have visited the casualty Department in Newcastle. Included in the programme for 1958–59 is a scheme of improvements costing about £15,000, of which two-thirds will be spent in that year.

HUNGARY

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the grave developments in Hungary.
As the House is aware, the crisis began with a peaceful demonstration by students and others on the afternoon of 23rd October. Violence broke out when the Security Police fired on the crowd. As the situation deteriorated the Hungarian Government called in the aid of Soviet troops. Those already in Hungary were speedily reinforced by Soviet forces from neighbouring countries. Some of the Soviet units have behaved with the utmost ruthlessness, as has the Hungarian Security Police throughout. Nevertheless, the Hungarians have not given in and appear from some reports to have established control over large parts of their country.
Her Majesty's Government and, I am sure, the whole British people have followed the struggle of the Hungarian people for their freedom and rights with profound sympathy and admiration.
Her Majesty's Government deemed it their duty, in concert with their Allies, to bring the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations at the earliest possible moment. The House will have seen the report of the proceedings in the Security Council yesterday evening. While the Hungarian Government may have been entitled to agree to the presence of Soviet troops in their country under the Warsaw Treaty, it is quite a different thing to use those troops to repress the Hungarian population and to call in additional Soviet forces for that purpose. There is no justification for that in the Warsaw Treaty.
The Hungarian Prime Minister announced last night that he has secured agreement with the Soviet commander to withdraw his troops from Budapest and that he was negotiating with the Soviet Government their withdrawal from the whole of Hungary.
As a practical gesture of sympathy, Her Majesty's Government have ordered the despatch by Royal Air Force aircraft of £15,000 worth of medical supplies and £10,000 worth of food from British Army stores in Germany to Vienna for relief work in Hungary. The distribution of these relief supplies, together with others, provided by the British Red Cross, is being arranged by the British, International and other national Red Cross organisations, to whose work I wish to pay tribute.
I am informed that these supplies should begin to reach Vienna today by air.

Mr. Gaitskell: On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I desire to join with the Government in expressing our very sincere sympathy with all those who have suffered so grievously in the fighting in Hungary during these last few days. I should also like to express our admiration for the courage of the Hungarian people in what is evidently a nation-wide struggle for independence and political freedom.
I cannot refrain from adding that we are deeply shocked by the use of Soviet tanks and troops against unarmed crowds. It is not from any lack of friendship for the Russian people to say this, but, on the contrary, because of that friendship that we express the hope that there will be a speedy withdrawal of Russian forces from Hungary altogether.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary two questions? He referred to the announcement that Russian troops were being withdrawn from Budapest. Would he explain how that is reconciled with the information given to the Security Council by our representative that additional Russian troops—two armoured units and other forces—were entering Hungary and advancing on Budapest, and whether he has any further information about the movement of Russian forces in Hungary at the moment? Secondly, can he say whether the Security Council will be meeting again later today or when its next meeting will take place?

Mr. Lloyd: On the question of Soviet troops, what I said in my statement was that the Hungarian Prime Minister announced agreement to withdraw from Budapest. Our latest information is that they have not yet withdrawn from Buda-

pest. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the movement of additional troops. Our information is in accordance with what he said, that further Soviet troops are being moved into Hungary towards the capital. As to further meetings of the Security Council, I am not in a position to tell the right hon. Gentleman at present.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that under Article 34 of the Charter the Security Council is fully authorised to investigate any situation which might give rise to international friction?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, that is our view and that is why, in the letter addressed to the President of the Security Council, Article 34 was mentioned. In reply to the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, one of the points about the next meeting of the Security Council is, I understand, that a representative of the Hungarian Government is on his way to New York.

Mr. Donnelly: While applauding every word that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about these historic events, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary is aware how much more effective would have been our country's representations to the United Nations had we been able to make them with completely clean hands and if there had been no repression in Cyprus?

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said at all.

Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this country has a direct responsibility for the maintenance of human rights in Hungary as a signatory to the Hungarian Peace Treaty? Can he, therefore, state that Her Majesty's Government will take the gravest view of any further moves by the Soviet Union—which also is a signatory of the Hungary Peace Treaty—to abolish human rights in that unhappy country?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is quite correct. The position under the Treaty was also referred to in the letter addressed to the President of the Security Council. I think that what we have to do is to hone to mobilise the force of world


opinion in this matter, so that a reasonable attitude may be taken.

Major Beamish: Since the Hungarian Peace Treaty made specific guarantees about the holding of free elections and the enjoyment of human rights and there were similar clauses in the Peace Treaties with Roumania and Bulgaria, and since similar promises were made at Yalta about Poland, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will consider consulting with the Soviet Union and the United States with a view to using his utmost influence to ensure, through peaceful negotiations, that the promises then made will now be fulfilled?

Mr. Lloyd: We are dealing today with the question of Hungary. I certainly hope that the progress of events there will move towards a free expression of opinion.

Mr. Benn: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for what he has done by way of relief, may I ask whether he will consider methods by which people in this country could demonstrate their solidarity by sending gifts of blood, materials and food to Hungary, the possibility of some longer-run economic aid for Hungary and the desirability of doing all this without in any way provoking the Soviet Government to think that their security is endangered?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is premature at this moment to talk of longer-term economic aid, but I will take into account the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Following on the questions about human rights, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend has any news he can give the House about Cardinal Mindszenty and other religious leaders of all persuasions who have been suffering Communist persecution in Hungary?

Mr. Lloyd: At the moment I have no further information on that.

Mr. Paget: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether, as stated on the tape, the Hungarian Government have thanked Her Majesty's Government for the offer of medical supplies and asked when and where they may expect them? If that is so, would it not be desirable to fly them directly to Hungary, to aerodromes designated by the Hungarian Government? The idea that the Hungarian Government had friends outside might have a psychological effect.

Mr. Lloyd: I have no official information of what the hon. and learned Member has said. All I know is that the first aircraft has already left the Royal Air Force station in Germany. I will consider what the hon. and learned Member has said.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that better publicity is given to Sir Pierson Dixon's statement in the Security Council, which I have had the opportunity of seeing in full, and which contains a great deal of extra information which I do not think is generally available? Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that he will keep the House fully informed of any development that may take place, and, if necessary, make a further statement tomorrow?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly promise the right hon. Gentleman that, and I will also consider how the admirable statement by Sir Pierson Dixon can be given additional publicity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, and certain other enactments relating to education in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act. 1956.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SAFETY OF PUPILS GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "have power."

The Chairman: I understand that this Amendment and the following Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman go together.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir Charles. This is a very important Clause because it involves the safety of school children, and it should be fully implemented. The object of my Amendments is to change it from permissive to mandatory. I put this point on Second Reading, and the Lord Advocate opposed it on grounds which I hope the Committee will regard as completely inadequate.
I submit that what is worth doing is worth doing well. The defeatist submission of the Lord Advocate was that what is worth doing may be done at one's option and in a half-hearted manner or may not be done at all. Such fainthearted defeatism should not be applied to the protection of children, who need and deserve all the protection that we, as legislators, can give them. We are all agreed about the aim and object of the Clause, and we want to protect children going to and from school.
The difference between us is that the Government want to give local authorities an option as to whether they will afford children that protection or not, while I take the view that different local authorities may vary in their desire to protect children and in the distance to which they will go in doing so. The Committee will agree that there are good and bad local authorities and education authorities. The object of my Amendments is to keep up the standard of protection of children to that of the best authorities.
I invite the Committee to look at the unconvincing argument adduced by the Lord Advocate on Second Reading, when I presented my argument. He said that it would not be appropriate that a local authority should be forced to carry out all the work that it could carry out. Why not? If a local authority is expected to carry out certain work, why should it not do all that work?
If a place is dangerous to the lives or limbs of pupils, the Bill should put education authorities under a statutory obligation to make it safe and keep it safe or else the Bill may be a dead letter. Also, the Bill might become a dead letter in certain cases according to the sense of good citizenship of the local authorities. There may be unequal administration over the country where there should be equal administration; where there are good local authorities pupils may be protected, but in other places they may not be.
My Amendments accord with precedent, but the argument of the Lord Advocate does not. Earlier education Acts have in the main been in mandatory terms. The great Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is in the main in mandatory terms. Section 1 begins :
It shall be the duty of every education authority to secure that adequate and efficient provision is made … 
That is mandatory. Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 are mandatory. The Lord Advocate will find that they are as mandatory in the main as the provisions which I seek to incorporate in the Bill. Other education Acts are couched in mandatory and not optional terms. To make them optional or permissive would limit and destroy their effectiveness. To leave this Bill permissive will spoil its effectiveness.
The Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1956, one of the progeny of the present


Government, was also in mandatory terms. Why have the Government departed from the idea of mandatory terms in the very necessary, laudable and desirable case of the protection of little children? The argument adduced by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government on Second Reading was absurd, inconsistent, unfair, unequal and chaotic. It would penalise good education authorities and put a premium on bad education authorities.
The Lord Advocate took as his illustration potholes in roads. According to his argument, some roads are to be made safe by repairing the potholes, but other roads are not to be made safe by repairing the potholes. When the Lord Advocate presented that argument, he must have forgotten his sense of humour. The Lord Advocate is very ingenious, very careful, diligent and exhaustive, as the speech which I am criticising shows. He went over the arguments very carefully, but some of the arguments which he adduced in reply seem to indicate that he had temporarily lost his sense of humour, or perhaps he was joking when he talked of selectivity among potholes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite put it in that way, but his argument amounted to that. It was that some potholes were to be repaired if dangerous to children and other potholes were not to be repaired if dangerous to children. Selectivity among potholes is really a ridiculous doctrine for any serious and learned Lord Advocate to present. Does he not know that a chain is as strong as its weakest link and that a chain of repaired potholes is as dangerous as the one pothole that is left unrepaired?
The Lord Advocate said on Second Reading with regard to this :
If it was suggested that a local authority must by law repair all these potholes, one would be trying to do an operation which was quite out of keeping with the necessities of the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 591.]
It must be obvious that the very reverse is the case. To repair some potholes and not others, to repair some dangerous roads and not others which have to be traversed by the children, provides a trap for the unwary. It would, in my submission, be better not to repair any of them, so that pupils and other people

traversing those roads would know that they were dangerous and would proceed with great care, instead of traversing roads where there were a number of potholes that had been repaired and one pothole that had not been repaired. That one unrepaired pothole would be a trap for the unwary.
It seems to me, that, while we are agreed about the aim and object of this Clause, to leave it permissive would destroy that laudable aim and object. In my submission, therefore, the Clause should be made mandatory, so that the education authority would be obliged by statute to carry out the duty which the Clause in its present form would in a faint-hearted way seek to put upon it.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): May I, first, thank the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for the few kind things that he said in his speech and disagree with him on the rest? The hon. and learned Gentleman, on Second Reading, made an impassioned appeal for the safety of little children. I entirely agree with him that it is essential that we should on every possible occasion make our roads, streets and schools as safe as possible for such children. He said today that most of the 1946 Act was mandatory. I quite agree. But that does not mean that every provision in the Act is mandatory, or that every subsequent provision made in connection with education should necessarily be mandatory.
I wonder whether the Committee fully appreciate exactly what lies behind this and subsequent Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I tell the Committee how this Clause would read if the Amendments proposed were accepted? It would then read :
Subject to the provisions of this section and with the approval of the Secretary of State an education authority shall for the purpose of reducing the risk of accident to pupils going to or returning from school or other educational establishments in their area and under their management or while actually present at such schools or establishments do all necessary work to maintain and improve the safety of any private road which is used by these pupils or which is in the vicinity of such a school or establishment, and shall provide or arrange for the provision of safety barriers at or near the entrances to such schools and establishments.
The Committee note that if these words which are suggested should be


incorporated in the Clause were included, it would be the education authorities' duty, subject to the Secretary of State's consent and subject to it being necessary, to repair and maintain every private road along which any child went to school. I do not think that the Committee would seriously think that it would be realistic to impose a duty of that kind on every education authority throughout the country. In certain cir-circumstances I fully agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that mandatory powers are necessary. In other circumstances, and I think that this is one, it is more appropriate to give local authorities—and education authorities are responsible bodies—the opportunity of doing what they themselves want to do, and that is what they are being given here.
We do not propose to hang the Sword of Damocles over every local authority and say that it must repair all private roads where necessary where children are going to school. In the past, the local authorities have found that in certain circumstances it is not competent for them to do certain repairs to bridges, roads and the like. They are accordingly now asking for authority to do that, and that is what this particular part of the Bill is inviting them to do.
I would, in conclusion, merely point to a strange situation which would arise here if, in accordance with the terms of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment we were to make this obligatory and yet leave in the Bill—and there is no suggestion that the words should be taken out—that we have to get the consent of the proprietor or occupier. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the light of my explanation, to withdraw the Amendment or, if he should wish to divide the Committee on it, I invite the Committee to reject it.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Lord Advocate is certainly making a great deal of pother about very little. Surely the question is whether the work to be done is necessary to make the roads safer for children. That is the test. The picture of miles of private road having constantly to be repaired, which the Lord Advocate has conjured up for the benefit of the Committee, is not a very accurate interpretation of what the responsibility of the local authority would be.
What, in fact, would result, if the Amendment were carried, would be that local authorities would be compelled to do these things if they made the roads safer for the children. Surely it is not a bad thing to compel a local authority to do everything that it can to make the roads as safe as possible for the children. The Government are spending thousands of pounds on conducting a campaign, "Mind this Child," and the Secretary of State said last week in this House that he would like to see that campaign carried into the homes, applied to accidents in the homes, and other forms of accidents.
What is the good of the Government spending thousands of pounds on appealing to people to "Mind this Child" if, at the same time, they refuse to say that a local authority should take the steps necessary to make the roads to the schools safer? That is all that my hon. and learned Friend asks for in the Amendment. The picture painted by the Lord Advocate is really a travesty of what would happen. I suggest, therefore, that the Government ought to look at this matter again.
4.0 p.m.
A local authority has power to make provision if it wishes, but, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, there are many local authorities to whom the prime consideration, particularly today, is the rate burden. Quite a number of worthy projects are stopped because of the rate burden. While I do not want to discuss whether the local authorities are right about that, I do suggest that in the matter of the safety of children, in which the lives of children are concerned, it should be the second consideration.
I visualise quite a number of local authorities who would would not be very willing to enable themselves of the powers under the subsection because they might be involved in a little money. That seems to me to be quite wrong. I cannot see that any great harm would be done in saying to a local authority, "You must take the necessary action to ensure the safety of the children." That is a very little thing to ask.
The existing powers are somewhat loose. A local authority may do the work if it wishes. After it has made up its mind, however, it must then wait for the Secretary of State to decide whether


the work should be done, because the Clause uses the words :
Subject to the provisions of this section and with the approval of the Secretary of State.…
I should have thought that a local authority was the best judge to decide on the safety of children going to school, and I cannot see any point in these words.
In circumstances such as exist today, under the present Government, we would find that the Secretary of State would be stopping some of this expenditure because the Government could not afford it as it entailed capital expenditure which they -did not at present deem advisable. That is the kind of excuse we are getting from the Government concerning quite a number of worthwhile schemes. That would be a very wrong approach from the Secretary of State in a matter affecting the lives of children.
We are dealing with children who might be killed or maimed for life or suffer some other form of permanent injury. In view of all this, I suggest to the Lord Advocate that before refusing the Amendments he should find better reasons for refusing them, because those he has put forward this afternoon are not very good.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out from "on" to the end of line 5 and to insert :
any road, the authority shall—

(a) if it is a public road, obtain the consent of the authority responsible for the maintenance of such road ;
(b) if it is a private road, consult the authority responsible for the maintenance of public roads in the area in which that private road is situated".

The Committee will note that by the Bill in its present form in the case of public roads consultations must take place between the local authorities and those interested in the roads and the education authority. Representations have been made that it would be desirable that consultations should take place between those interested in the neighbourhood of a private road, because it might well happen that the private road would soon be taken over and it is desirable that any new barriers and the like that are put up should be erected in accordance with the most appropriate planning so that they may be put up permanently

and not have to be altered if the road is taken over at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation" and to insert Secretary of State ".
This Amendment has been made necessary by the transfer of functions as a result of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken over certain road responsibilities in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I should like to raise a small point that was raised on Second Reading, whether the Clause could be taken to include the making of a new path or a new bridge and not only the repairing of one that already existed.
On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said in his reply that
The answer to his "—
right hon. and gallant Friend's—
question—whether a brand new road or footpath could be made under this power—would be 'No', if it did not exist at all.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say :
Of course, if something which was a path was already in existence—and it is almost certain that there would be a track—it could be improved or repaired."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1956 ; Vol. 558, c. 591.]
I take that as meaning that the Government would like to be able to use this power rather freely, but that there is no statutory authority for doing so.
I wonder whether it would be possible, even at this stage, for an Amendment, which I think would be non-controversial, to be introduced to include the word "provide" as well as "improve". In line 11, subsection (1) uses the words
to do work to improve the safety of any private road 
whereas line 13 states :
and to provide or arrange for the provision of safety barriers …
If we can provide the new safety barriers, why can we not provide for a new little path or small bridge?
I do not want to make much of the point but, as I said on Second Reading,


in quite a few housing schemes, particularly new schemes, there is an opportunity for a track to be made across perhaps a field, thereby affording a short cut to school. It would do no harm and would not be opposed by the owner of the field. It might be necessary to build a little bridge over a ditch and in this way the children could go direct to school without encountering the dangers of the main road. It seems to me that if such a thing could be done—and in certain cases it could—the Government ought to make it possible.
For that reason, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give his attention once again to the point.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I want to refer to other methods which might avoid the expense which could be incurred, and which might be very heavy, under the provisions of the Clause. I do so because I have an actual case which illustrates the point I want to make.
I am in correspondence with the education authority which has carefully considered the question of a very dangerous main road which passes through Sten-housemuir. Children there who go to school by bus—there is now a new arrangement for a school some distance away, and they have to travel by bus—have to come out on to the main road, cross the main road and stand in the dangerous traffic area to catch the bus. The parents in the area have been making representations that this danger could be avoided by a slight re-routing of the bus. If this could be done, the children would not be involved in the dangers of the traffic on the main road.
That provokes me to raise the point in connection with the Clause, which provides that in such conditions in other areas the Government may be involved in considerable expense to provide another road or another method of reaching the school, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) suggested, so that danger might be avoided by a sensible re-routing of the vehicle.
I do not know whether this question can be answered offhand, but I should like to know whether there are any powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene in such a matter with a view to the licensing authority's making such

conditions, when licensing a bus route, as will enable pressure to be brought on a bus company should the company be reluctant to do what seems to everybody to be the commonsense thing to do.
No one suggests that buses should have to go hither and thither all over the place to comply with my suggestion, but everyone will agree that if a slight, special change in the route of a bus or in a bus stop would contribute to the safety of the children, and would not affect the bus time-table, it is desirable that the bus company should make the change and act sensibly in the matter, or else that the licensing authority should agree to such re-routing as seems desirable.
I should like to know whether it is possible for the Secretary of State to intervene with the licensing authority, which is a quasi-judicial body and, therefore, cannot be instructed to do such a thing. However, I take it that it is not out of order to bring to its attention requirements other than the speed of the buses, shortest distances on journeys, convenience and so on, if, for instance, by slightly compromising convenience from one point of view convenience could be made also to satisfy the requirements for the safety of the children and, perhaps, also to contribute to the saving of unnecessary expenditure.

The Lord Advocate: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) raised the question of new roads, as the Committee will remember, during Second Reading. It had been considered carefully before that, and since then it has been considered carefully again. We feel that this Bill, as some hon. Members have already pointed out, necessarily has limited objects. It is not designed to introduce, as it were, an education committee as a new road authority to make roads and paths. The object of this Clause is to remove certain disabilities under which education authorities have been labouring.
As my hon. and gallant Friend will know, if a new path or a road is necessary then the education authority, either alone or in collaboration with another authority, is entitled to apply for compulsory powers and to acquire the land. In this case it would be, I think, to introduce a rather new conception, if the road should be made on land not acquired by


the education authority. Though we have great sympathy with the suggestion put out, and can see certain definite advantages in it, we feel that in all the circumstances it should be left to interested authorities—they may be housing or may be education authorities—themselves to get together and, if a road or path is necessary, to acquire the land in the usual way.
As to the most interesting question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I should not like at this stage to say that the Secretary of State has statutory power to intervene, but the local authority would certainly have a power to make representations to the traffic commissioners as interested parties. When an application goes to the traffic commissioners people can make representations.
The traffic commissioners, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, are really a quasi-court of law and are an independent body and cannot be given instructions, but I cannot see any traffic commissioners not paying very careful and sympathetic attention to a suggestion that a bus could be diverted, perhaps to make it quicker for the children to get to school or safer for the children to get to school, and I think that an application would be made, or that the traffic commissioners would be invited to consider that by the local education authority.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The circumstances could be such that, perhaps, the diversion of only one bus in a day would make all the difference. I am not sure whether the licensing authority may have certain rules laid down about what considerations it has to take into account when giving licences for the routeing of buses and whether, when it has routed a bus, it has power to make any variations in the route for, say, one bus during a day.
The circumstances could be such that it would be common sense for a bus, filled with school children, to stop at a place suitable for them though not a customary stopping place—to stop, say, at the school itself instead of a quarter of a mile away. Again, it may be better and safer for the children to board the bus at a spot not a regular stopping place, although during the rest of the day it

would be more convenient for everybody else for the bus not to stop there, but elsewhere, or to follow another route.
That is the sort of thing I should like inquired into, because it may be that a licensing authority is bound by certain instructions as to what it may consider in giving its judgment, or it may be that, the rulings having been given, it is not possible for the bus company to alter the direction of the bus during the day without infringing the conditions of its licence.

The Lord Advocate: We will certainly look into that. It sounds common sense, and I think that we must be able to meet the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 7 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: This Clause was referred to several times during the debate on Second Reading. It removes from the local authorities the duty of submitting detailed and formal schemes for certain types of education. Those types of education are types which I consider of great importance today. The first covers the whole range of part-time further education, and there is no more vital part of Scottish education today. Yet the Clause removes from the education authorities the duty of submitting schemes about it.
The second type consists of educational facilities as mentioned in Section 3 of the principal Act. They include many extremely necessary, useful and imaginative ventures in general social and recreational education—facilities such as playing fields, holiday camps, holiday classes, and so on. The third type of education affected by the Clause is special educational treatment in other than special schools.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate, during the Second Reading debate, justified this change on the ground that it was very much a formality and that these types of education did not fit too well into any firm, permanent scheme of education. They said that in removing the necessity for


education authorities to have to submit schemes they were not making any very serious change.
We are prepared to be convinced about this matter, but for the moment we feel very strongly that the Government must make a much better case for it than they did on Second Reading. It may be that this is only an administrative reform, but the kind of control exercised by the Department of Education over the local authorities, through the need to submit regular schemes, is a very important kind of control. Moreover, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, the Department of Education is very conscious of the need, in further education in particular, to prod local authorities to make them move a very great deal faster than they are moving at the moment. In some respects, for instance, in apprentices' classes, we lag a generation behind England, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Many local authorities in Scotland are not as enthusiastic about this kind of education as they ought to be.
I should be most reluctant to see disappear from its hands any sort of administrative weapon which would help the Scottish Education Department to speed this process of further education, and that applies with equal force to other educational facilities. It seems to me that the Clause is very much a civil servants' Clause. It is something to make life a little easier for administrators, but the only test that we can apply to it as legislators is whether it will make any difference to the quality of the education which children will receive.
If it is true that further education and other aspects of education do not fit into the formal, normal schemes suitable for permanent primary education I should have thought that the answer was to arrange for schemes more flexible in their nature and not to abolish the duty to provide schemes. The provision in the Clause is very much as if a Government, faced with a crime wave, came to the conclusion that the law was inadequate and considered that the answer to the problem was to abolish the law.
The answer is to make an instrument more flexible and more appropriate to the particular problems of further education and training facilities. Surely that is the answer rather than to abolish the duty

laid on local authorities to prepare schemes for the Scottish Education Department and to allow the Department some detailed knowledge of the kind of progress local authorities are making in these spheres of education. It is for these reasons that I seek the deletion of the Clause.

Mr. William Ross: During the Second Reading I expressed my dismay at the Government's decision to put forward this Clause. 1 may also have given some indication of being angry because the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was given the responsibility of explaining to the House the reasons for the Government's decision, had not even taken the trouble to tell us anything at all about the change. If I can remember the hon. Gentleman's speech—and it is not a thing that I recall with any great delight—he picked out five main points in the Bill and Clause 2 was not one of them.
Personally, from my researches, I believe that the Clause comprises one of the more important changes made by the Bill. Those who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) stating that he is in favour of the complete rejection of the Clause should be warned as to what it might do and what might well be implicit in it.
Section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, lays down that local authorities shall have certain duties of providing primary, secondary and further education. Section 7 of that Act lays down how those duties are to be exercised. The Clause which we are now discussing is an amendment of Section 7, which states that in respect of certain spheres of education that duty of submitting schemes for approval, modification or rejection by the Secretary of State shall not be effective.
I know that the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary will say that this in no way changes the duty of a local authority to provide education in these respects. That may well be so, but it removes from the local authority not just the right but the actual duty—and the word "duty" is used in Section 7 of the principal Act. Therefore, by means of this Clause the Government are removing from local authorities the duty of submitting schemes and of demonstrating to the Department how they propose to exercise the duty laid upon them.
It means that the Government are saying to the local authorities, "You do not need to bother about submitting the schemes. You do not need to bother about carrying out the duty laid upon you in Section 1 of the 1946 Act, and if you do anything you do not need to let the Department know about it." The Joint Under-Secretary appears to indicate dissent, but he should read the full implications of the Clause. How will he know what the local authorities are doing in respect of these aspects of education unless the schemes are submitted? He is discarding his supervisory powers over the schemes.
The Clause states that
The functions of an education authority under the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be exercised in accordance with schemes prepared as hereinafter provided and approved by the Secretary of State …
Yet, under Clause 2, in respect of these aspects of education no schemes are prepared for submission, and the Secretary of State will know nothing about them. The House of Commons will know nothing about them later on, because information about them will not appear in the Department's Report on Education in Scotland.
No responsibility will be laid upon the local authority to give details to the central Department. The Government are showing the appalling consistency of the Tory Party in adopting a negative attitude to education. They cannot say that they are encouraging these aspects of education when they say to the local authorities, "You do not need to bother to make schemes, or when you do have schemes you do not need to let us know about them. We do not want to be bothered with them." This is a case not only of telling the local authorities not to prepare schemes, but of the Secretary of State saying, "Do not worry me with them." He has at present the power to demand that the authorities make schemes if they do not already do so and submit those schemes to him, but now he is saying, "Do not send the schemes to me." Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is throwing away one of his own supervisory powers.
What is involved here is very important. It is the definite discouragement of developments which were hitherto considered by Scotsmen to be important branches of Scottish education.

I cannot see how all this fits in with the explanation of the purpose of the Bill which is to remove the difficulties that hamper the administration and hinder the development of Scottish education. How will the Clause help the development of education when it actually discourages local authorities from playing their full part and from letting the Department and the country know what is happening?
One of the developments affected by the Clause relates to voluntary part-time or full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age. The Department's Report on Education in Scotland in 1955 shows the kind of thing involved and what the local authorities do, of which the Government will have no knowledge in future. It is not something that affects only a few people. The number of voluntary part-time students rose by over 5,000 last year to 225,000. Report after Report, year after year, shows that the central Department has been driving the local authorities to do more. That drive was based on the knowledge of what they were doing, or failing to do, by the schemes presented. How is the Scottish Education Department to continue this work if it does not know what local authorities are doing?
4.30 p.m.
What is involved in this part-time and full-time voluntary education? As I see it, all day releases are involved as well because they are voluntary. It does not mean merely subjects such as dressmaking, but science, mining, social studies and leadership training, because these are voluntary full-time courses.
One of the major problems of today is the development of technical education, and voluntary full-time courses have always played a considerable part in Scottish education through continuation in evening classes and today through voluntary daily leave. Yet the Government are playing down its importance at a time when they should be stressing it. I am appalled by the attitude taken up by the Government and by the explanations that have been given.
The Report of the Secretary of State for Scotland for this year states, in regard to day releases :
This method of training … is still not widely enough adopted and more general support from industry would enable the numbers to be expanded at an even greater rate.


This needs more support from the Government, indeed from the Secretary of State, who wants to free himself from certain of the obligations which Parliament has placed upon him to ensure that we get adequate facilities in respect of voluntary education both part-time and full-time.
Then there is the leisure-time occupation. Anyone who has read the Report and has seen the work that is being done and the praise given to it, must question the wisdom of the course suggested by the Government who are adopting this Pontius Pilate act, washing their hands of it, saying, in effect, "It does not matter to us, the duty is there but, in the exercise of it, do not bother us, do not let us know what you are doing."
The Report refers to the provision of facilities for recreation. This is important, especially when we have been trying to build, with new junior secondary schools, a completely different type of education based upon the abilities of the pupils and to meet their varying enthusiasms. We know what is being done in the provision of holiday camp schools and of treks, which provide considerable education. Ayrshire has been providing such things for junior secondary and senior secondary schools at the summer school at West Lynton. I can remember particularly one in which Ayrshire children joined with French children. They are of inestimable value, but they are covered by this Clause.
The Government cannot adopt the attitude of not wanting to know what is being done and at the same time proclaim in the Report that this is work which should be developed elsewhere by other local authorities. It may be expensive, but it is worth while. We have only to read what is stated in page 48 to appreciate the value of the recreational, social and physical training which is being given, not only by the local authorities themselves, but by the local authorities in co-operation with voluntary organisations. The fact that this is difficult work is probably all the more reason why it should be undertaken. And let us remember that this is not work in connection with further education, but in relation to pupils still attending primary and secondary schools.
In my opinion, schemes ought to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to exercise his supervisory duties in this respect. It may well be that he has taken over further duties in past years which might have been better carried out by other and more technical Departments, but in relation to this traditional duty the Minister should be exercising his responsibilities fully and not handing them over.
In page 54 of the Report there is further evidence of the importance of this job at a time when the Department is saying, in connection with voluntary leisure-time occupations, "Well, this is going down but, thank goodness, last year it went up." The Report states :
The increase of enrolments in non-technical courses is to a large extent due to the revival of interest in the study of liberal subjects normally comprised in the term Adult Education.
Yet, instead of following that by a drive towards better and more widespread adult education, the Secretary of State says, in effect, "Do not bother us with schemes about it."
That is playing down the importance of adult education and is discouraging it. If ever there was a time when the help of the Secretary of State and of the Department was required, it is now, when we have so many distractions from a physically and mentally active life in our community, such as television. The Secretary of State should be playing his part in trying to speed a revival of interest in more liberal aspects of adult education. When we have a Government in one week issuing special leaflets about buying Premium Savings Bonds, and in the next week presenting a Bill telling us that adult education does not really matter, we begin to get this Government into perspective and to see the things that really matter to them. It is appalling that in this day and age the Government should be playing down this type of education.
I have only one other point to make. It concerns special educational treatment, which is referred to in paragraph (c) of this Clause. I suggest that the Government should get busy and make some necessary amendment in this respect. If they had been doing then-job properly, the Government would have


amended Section 1 (4) of the original Act which states :
Special educational treatment shall be given in special schools approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose, or by other means so approved.
If these words are to be left in, as I gather they are, they will have no meaning, because this paragraph (c) refers to "special educational treatment other than in special schools", which means that these words are redundant.
I should like an explanation of what is meant by the words "other than in special schools". We have a fairly forward-looking report of what is happening in relation to the treatment of pupils who have to be dealt with in special schools and other types of schools which may not come within the definition of special schools. I hope sincerely that there is to be no cutting down of the facilities used to help such handicapped children.
I should have thought that the Government would have been trying in every way possible to relieve the burden upon parents in respect of such ineducable children, and in helping them out in other ways, even by encouraging local authorities to try personal means in some respects. But the Government are saying, "Do not burden us with information about what you are doing." At a time when we complain that there is too little experiment in Scottish education the surest way in which the Government or the Department can get to know what people are doing in Scotland is by making them submit these schemes so that we, in this House, can have the benefit, as we do in the Report, of knowing what is being done in specific areas.
I am appalled that hon. Gentlemen opposite can sit there and take this in silence, as they did the other day. Under the Clause, local authorities are in future to go their own sweet way in education and not to worry the Department of Education. In the long run it will mean that we ourselves are discouraging those aspects of education of which we have hitherto thought so highly.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am opposed to this Clause. I believe that to leave Clause 2 in this little Bill would impair the educational system of Scotland. It would be a change for the worse

and would impair the work of the great Education (Scotland) Act, 1946.
Previous speakers have dealt with the Clause on its merits, or rather its demerits, but there are other objections to it. One is that Clause 2 is a horrible example of legislation by reference, which all lawyers, good legislators and good administrators deprecate. It is unduly complicated, while the Section which it seeks to eliminate is very simple and straight-forward. This Clause would be difficult to administer. It is an objectionable Clause which seeks to alter Section 7 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, in undesirable ways.
How undesirable those ways are was evidenced by the Lord Advocate himself when, on Second Reading, he spoke on this phase of the Bill and said the Clause was "complicated and troublesome." When he was asked for an explanation of it he rode away by saying that to explain it would keep the House here interminably.
That is very bad. Legislation should not be of that character. It should be clear and concise, easily intelligible and capable of explanation, and readily administered. Otherwise it becomes, as this Clause has become, bad, opaque, difficult to construe and difficult to administer.
What does Clause 2 do? It seeks to eliminate Section 7 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. That Section indicates that provision shall be made of
educational facilities to be in accordance with schemes.
Subsection (1) of it is simple, straightforward and useful. It reads :
The functions of an education authority under the foregoing sections of this Act shall be exercised in accordance with schemes prepared as hereinafter provided and approved by the Secretary of State under section sixty-five of this Act.
Nothing could be more concise, more straight-forward or more intelligible than that.
4.45 p.m.
If we turn to Section 65, we find that it provides for the
Approval and carrying out of schemes.
That, also, is clear, intelligible, concise and easily administered. It should be noted that Section 7 (1), unlike this objectionable Clause 2, is not legislation


by reference to other statutes ; it just says what it means.
Clause 2 would change all that. It would substitute a new and almost unintelligible Clause, characterised by obscurity of meaning, cross-references and difficulties of operation. Clause 2, to which we object, contains 14 lines, and in those 14 lines it makes five different cross-references and refers to three exceptions. To glean its meaning one must look backwards and forwards to other legislation. That in itself is objectionable.
One of the two principal references is to Section 1 (5) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which also is clear and useful and which deals with further education. It deals with compulsory part-time and full-time courses of instruction, voluntary part-time and full-time courses of instruction and voluntary leisure-time occupation. The second reference is to Section 3 of the 1946 Act, which deals with
Facilities for recreation and social and physical training.
The outstanding defects of Clause 2, to which we object and which our Amendment seeks to eliminate, are its admitted obscurity—admitted by the Lord Advocate—its cross-references, the fact that it is unnecessary and the fact that it seeks to do what is already done in a better way in the principal Act.
For those reasons I hope that the Committee will reject this objectionable Clause. It is the duty of any Government to prove that legislation which it presents to the House is necessary, useful and intelligible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, that was not done in this case on Second Reading. It is the duty of the Government to do it now.

Mr. John Rankin: I gathered from the attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and from one or two interjections which he made that he dissociated himself very largely from the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In view of his attitude, I do not propose to advance my own views, but I feel it incumbent upon me to put the view of perhaps the greatest education authority

in Scotland—the Glasgow Education Authority.
Its view on this Clause has been stated to me by its Deputy-Director, who looks after the legal side of the educational work of the authority in addition to his other duties. I will quote his view, which was given to me within the last few days. It is that Clause 2 means that :
Under the Bill it is now unnecessary for the Education Committee to incorporate in their formal schemes of education (a) the provision for voluntary part-time and full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age, and voluntary leisure-time occupations in such organised cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements for persons over school age.
I think that is in keeping with what was; said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and I gathered from the Joint Under-Secretary of State that he did not see eye-to-eye with my hon. Friend on that point. The quotation continues :
… facilities for recreative and social and physical training under Section 3 of the 1946 Act.
That, again, was a point which my hon. Friend made when he was condemning the Clause. Finally :
… special educational treatment other than in special schools.
These are the three points made by Glasgow Education Committee in its interpretation of this Clause. It is on those three issues that we condemn the Clause.
Of course, it is claimed that the Clause has a good aspect, in that it liberates the education committees from the thralldom of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It now gives an education committee more power to go ahead on its own without the control at present exercised. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is, to my mind, a debatable point. I believe that my own education authority will continue to act as it is acting now in carrying out this part of our educational work, and that many of the local authorities also will in no way abandon their efforts to carry on this work.
Nevertheless, I should be very dubious about the attitude of a great many Scottish local authorities, if this paternal or beneficent control of the Scottish Office were withdrawn, and were it possible for those authorities to deal with this part of education without the House of Commons having any knowledge of what was going on. At the moment we are kept fully


informed, but if the bonds are loosened, then it is extremely doubtful whether we shall have in future such information about what is happening in this sphere of education as we have had in the past, and that would be most unfortunate.
We have always encouraged people to take these courses, and we have spent a great deal of money in sustaining them. I have had a considerable amount of experience of that type of work. It needed the complete backing and cooperation of the local authority to get this work going and to continue it on its progressive way. I do not wish to see that support weakened by the fact that it will become a job which they can do if they see fit and which they do not need to do if they feel that it will cost the ratepayers too much money. The Scottish Office and the Secretary of State do not seem to be very anxious about them doing it at all. That is the sort of impression which I feel may gat abroad about the intentions of the Scottish Office as contained in the Clause.
These could be put across by arguing that our local authorities will be given more power than at present. That argument is being advanced, and it will win support; but in the long run we want to see a pattern which does not just apply to one or two areas but to the whole of Scotland. We want to see this type of education pursued as actively in the remote parts of Scotland as in the highly industrialised areas. There is a danger that, if the Clause is adopted in its present form, there will be a weakening of the effort directed towards sustaining these classes and making them better known and more popular among Scottish students.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will make clear that that is not the intention and, if it is not, that he will see that words are inserted into the Clause which are at present lacking, and which would make it perfectly clear that the intention of the Government is what we have been advocating from this side of the Committee.

Mr. William Hannan: I wish to support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). During the Second Reading debate I voiced my suspicions about what

was intended in Clause 2 of this Bill, and further reading of it since the comparison with the original Act has not in any way diminished those suspicious. If one has regard to the words in page 2, line 19 where certain exceptions are made, it can be seen that the functions relate to paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Clause and that in the original Act further education includes, in subsection (5) compulsory part-time and in exceptional cases full-time courses of instruction.
Why is the distinction being made between compulsory part-time and in exceptional cases full-time instruction when it is only voluntary part-time courses and voluntary leisure occupation courses which are affected by the amended Bill? I think that an important point to make. It would appear that the Government are prepared—at least it would lend weight to the argument—to do only that which is under compulsion and are not prepared to pay the same attention to voluntary matters. Section 3 also excludes the duty placed on local authorities to provide adequate facilities—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): Order. The hon. Member must not discuss Clause 3.

Mr. Hannan: I beg your pardon, Sir Norman, I am referring to Section 3 of the original Act. If I did not make that clear, it is my fault.
Under that Section the local authority has the duty of providing adequate facilities for recreational as well as physical training. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) indicated that that includes making playing fields, play centres and gymnasia available for persons for whom and to whom these facilities could be of some benefit. But it is not merely for adults. These facilities are also provided for pupils at junior and secondary schools. Therefore, the provision in the Bill represents a deterioration in educational standards.
5.0 p.m.
Turning to special educational treatment, I should like this point clarified. I should like to know, for example, whether the Eastpark Home, in the Mary-hill constituency, comes under the category of "special schools" or whether the special facilities which are provided within that home will be in any way attacked, or the services offered there will


deteriorate? Until comparatively recently the interests and talents of children which were thought to be worth while developing through education were rather circumscribed, and even up to the beginning of this century they consisted of very little more than a day's examination in a few bookish subjects. But we have now come to see that these other interests, in physical training, camps and the rest, should be included in order to meet the various needs of the children and provide for them a wider scope in life.
We have to remind the Joint Under-Secretary that some of us are rather suspicious because of a speech which he made six years ago, in which he talked about the frills of education, and he made no bones about his attitude then. It may be that now that he has the opportunity of doing something about it he is translating his ideas into the present Bill.
I hope that he will endeavour at least to give an answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. Does the explanation offered by the Deputy Director of Education in Glasgow mean what he says it means? Does it mean that it now becomes unnecessary for local authorities to provide these schemes? Will he state positively what is the Government's attitude to further education as a whole? Some of us are not prepared to see any more deterioration in educational standards, and now that we have the opportunity of voicing the opinion of a great local authority like Glasgow, we want an answer clearly given.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): This has been a very useful debate—

Mr. Ross: It has not been a debate.

Mr. Stewart: —a very useful discussion, then. I was hoping to be polite to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will allow me to continue. It is valuable to the community to have this matter discussed, and I am glad to have an opportunity to answer some of the questions put to me. I do not think that we are in any doubt about what we are discussing ; we are discussing whether we should continue to require a local authority to include in its scheme—this special word "scheme" ; this written document—its proposals and plans for voluntary further

education for people over school age ; for recreational work for people within school age; and for children who need special attention. Those are the three groups.
There is no question whatever of the Government backsliding in this matter, or allowing any local authority to backslide. On the contrary, everything that the Government have done up till now is a clear proof that that is not so, and local authorities have recognised that we are intensely anxious to develop all those sides of education.
I suppose that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is entitled to criticise the Government, but he really has not been following events in recent years. I met his authority, together with other authorities, not very long ago. I have met all the regional advisory councils on technical education in Scotland—not the other day, but six months ago—and I have met all the leading authorities and have urged them, as hon. Members know very well, to take every possible action to advance this kind of work. There is every proof that the Government are absolutely sincere in this matter and are demanding from the authorities a far greater pressure of work than was ever exercised before. I ask the Committee to believe that we are absolutely sincere and genuine about this.
The only question is whether, from an administrative point of view, the best way to ensure that those activities are continued, and to be certain—as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) put it—that we get the information, is to continue to insist upon what we call "schemes," or to adopt some other means. The other day I tried to explain this matter to the House, and I shall try to explain it further to the Committee. Let us consider the great authority of Glasgow. I was not able to take down the quotation of the words of the Deputy Director, but if my impression of what he said is correct I entirely agree with him. Schemes are not necessary in the case of the three classes to which I have referred. That is what is in the Bill.
Hon. Members opposite may have gone wrong in the assumption that because we no longer require the operations of local authorities to be included in schemes we no longer require them to report to us. That is not so. I invite the Committee,


and especially the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who claimed to have given a lot of study to this matter, to look at Section 3 of the 1946 Act, which is referred to in paragraph (b) of the Clause, which says :
such facilities as are mentioned in section three of this Act …
If he looks at the fourth line in Section 3 of the principal Act he will see that it says that :
For that purpose an education authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State
may do this, that and the other thing—that is to say, everything that it does under what we cover by paragraph (b) in the Clause must obtain the prior approval of the Secretary of State. Nothing at all is altered in the realm of duty. I invite the hon. Member—

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Member will be so kind as to allow me to make my speech. I am not afraid of his interruption, but I am not going to be put off my stride by him.
I invite him to look further, on the same point, to Section 1 (4) of the principal Act. There we get exactly the same thing again. This is referred to in paragraph (c) of the Clause. Subsection (4) says :
Special educational treatment shall be given in special schools approved by the Secretary of State … 
That again means that a local authority has imposed upon it a duty to let us know what it has in mind, and to obtain our approval. Nothing can be done without our knowledge. There is therefore no change, except administratively.

Mr. Woodburn: What the Joint Under-Secretary has said is very reasonable. All these powers are there. But he has not explained why he is taking out the scheme. Can he define the word "scheme"? What is the objection to a scheme? It seems to me to be a way of letting the Secretary of State know in advance what will happen.

Mr. Stewart: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman. I was trying to show at this point that the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Govan, in what I regarded as a very reasonable speech, is not well founded.
The Committee need have no fear whatever as to there being any change in

the duties imposed upon local authorities. They must continue to do precisely what they are doing now. The only question is with regard to the way in which they do it. At present that duty has to be carried out in the form of a scheme. As I said during the Second Reading debate, a scheme is a long document. No doubt some hon. Members have examined those schemes and seen what they involve. They are very lengthy and detailed documents.
Such documents, detailed and permament, are all right for primary and secondary education, because after all these years we have reached a sort of stability with regard to them. Of course, there are changes from day to day. A new scheme may be put up and it may have to be somewhat amended, but in broad particulars it has a certain stability. But in further education, as the Committee will well understand, there is constant change, constant fluidity.
I am giving the Committee the experience, not only of the Department, but of the authorities. Education authorities have not found it possible to carry out their duties through the normal method of a scheme, so what have they done? What they have done in the last five or ten years—this is history—and what they are now doing, what Glasgow and Fife now do, in the realm of further education and of these other matters, is to say to us, "Look, this is our programme for the next year. Do you agree to it?" We agree.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was quite right : it is the same idea as a scheme, but it has not the formality of a scheme. Both the authorities and the Department are quite clear that the necessity for a formal scheme in this kind of fluid work is putting upon the authorities and upon the Department a responsibility and a task which is unnecessarily heavy. As I say, in the past three years the authorities have never been in any trouble. Sometimes they have had to write to us for approval of ad hoc schemes.
I will turn for a moment to a point raised by, I think, the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) who very properly drew attention to paragraph (c) which refers to
special educational treatment other than in special schools.


May I say, first, that the school in Glasgow to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be altered in any way? Its duties and tasks will be just the same.
The child with whom we are concerned is the child who cannot be treated in an ordinary special school or in a special class of another school. It is the child who is particularly handicapped. As I am sure some hon. Members know, from time to time Scottish authorities send their children to schools outside Scotland altogether. I have in front of me a list of eight schools in England to which specially handicapped children in Scotland are sometimes sent for treatment. If the Committee would like me to do so I will give one or two examples. They are rather tragic cases, which have impressed themselves particularly upon the local authorities in Scotland. Good work is being done in that direction.
Special training or special care is sometimes provided in a hospital or in the child's own home as well as in these special establishments. In all these cases the local authorities have written to us for ad hoc authority and approval so that, in practice, we are not really making any change at all. We have never been able to have schemes. Not since the time in office of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire has there ever been a scheme for further education or for compulsory further education.
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not yet ready to introduce compulsory further education. There is a later Amendment on the Amendment Paper on this point, so I need not develop it now. When we come to the point of introducing compulsory release on one day a week, for which I personally am intensely anxious, there will be no difficulty about drawing up schemes, because the education authorities will have the applications and will know the numbers. What makes it difficult now is the fact that this is voluntary.
I quite understand the anxieties of hon. Members, but I hope that I have dispelled their suspicions and explained why we are doing this. In these circumstances, and giving hon. Members the absolute assurance that we are intensely keen about this matter and that this Clause will in no way hinder but rather help

the good work being done in this direction, I invite the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press for the rejection of the Clause.

5.15 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am quite certain that we on this side of the Committee cannot in any way agree with the final sentence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he says that Clause 2 will really help rather than hinder the work. My hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the deletion of the Clause have given many reasons why they wish to see it deleted. It seems to me that the Joint Under-Secretary has given no real reason for the Government wishing to retain the Clause.
The first part of the Clause deals with further education. Section 1 (5) of the principal Act contains paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Clause 2 deals only with paragraphs (b) and (c). Under paragraph (a) the education authorities will still have to provide schemes for compulsory part-time, and, in exceptional circumstances, for full-time courses. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the Committee are suspicious of the Government's motive in putting the Clause in the Bill. We feel that the matters on which education authorities are now no longer going to be asked to provide schemes are very important matters indeed. I wish to draw the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State to paragraph (c) of Section 7 (7) of the principal Act. There, we are told :
In the preparation of any scheme for further education, an education authority shall have regard to such of the following considerations as may be relevant.
Quite a number of considerations are listed. Paragraph (c) says that education authorities are to have regard
to the need for securing the adequate provision of technical education and, keeping in view the requirements of the crafts, industries, commerce and other employments in the area.
Surely the Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as we on this side of the Committee that much of that type of education is voluntary on the part of the students, on the part of the boy or the girl leaving school at 15 years of age and going to a night school. It seems to us to be of the greatest importance that the status of that kind of education should be no


lower than the status of what is called compulsory part-time education. If we are taking from the education authorities the onus of making schemes, then, indeed, we are making a difference between compulsory part-time education and voluntary education.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the hon. Lady may be under the impression that we are stopping something which is happening at the moment. That is not so. There never has been a scheme, not even in her time, which included these three matters. That is not possible and never has been possible. We are recognising a dead letter and saying that if it cannot be done in one way it will be done in another. I hope that is clear.

Miss Herbison: But the Minister must also be clear that he is amending the principal Act in such a way that there will no longer be any onus on education authorities to provide schemes. Until the passing of the Bill, education authorities have a responsibility under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, to provide such schemes. It may be that they have had difficulty in providing them—the Minister gave examples. We are willing to accept that there are difficulties, but that is all the more reason why the education authorities should try to overcome them. The acceptance of Clause 2 will mean that education authorities will not have to attempt to overcome those difficulties, and consequently voluntary part-time education will have a status lower than that of compulsory part-time education.
The making of a scheme—and I know something about this from my work as a teacher—means that certain people have given a great deal of thought to the matter and have said to those who are to carry out the work, "This is what we want provided in voluntary part-time education." What guarantee have we that, if they do not have to make a scheme, the same thought will be given to voluntary part-time education that we demand for compulsory part-time education?
It is because we have these grave fears and because the Joint Under-Secretary in his Second Reading speech and today has not dispelled these fears, that we are still convinced that the Clause ought to be deleted and the principal Act left as it is.

Mr. Rankin: The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that at present education committees are not preparing schemes.

Mr. Ede: They have gone on strike.

Mr. Rankin: That is another matter. They are not preparing formal schemes and are not submitting schemes to the Department, although it is laid down in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, that they shall. Recognising that no schemes are being prepared, the Government have introduced a Bill incorporating a Clause which says that no schemes shall be prepared, that it is not necessary to do something which is not being done. That is rather involved. Nevertheless, it will be a legal fact, if the Bill is approved, that it will not be necessary to do something which nobody is doing. It seems to me that the easiest and simplest way of dealing with the problem would be to leave it alone.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary has said that there were ad hoc schemes.

Mr. Rankin: We will not introduce Latin, because that will bring even more difficulties. At the moment no formal schemes are being prepared. It would have been far better to have left in operation the present method under which a director of education sends a sort of omnibus statement to the Department at the beginning of every term detailing the schemes it is proposed to have.
Why change that? In disturbing that situation the Government are loosening the bond between the Secretary of State and the local authorities. That is a retrograde step and I hope that it will be reconsidered. There is still time and if there is not as much time as the Joint Under-Secretary could wish, then that is not our fault, but that of the Government. The Clause is not essential and no harm will be done to this little Bill if the Clause is dropped and the status quo remains, because, on the showing of the Joint Under-Secretary, it has been satisfactory.

Mr. Ross: I intervene for a short time only because I was not permitted the courtesy of being allowed to make an interruption while the Joint Under-Secretary was in full flow. I do not blame him, because he was on a somewhat sticky wicket at the time. He was trying


to say that we need not worry about what is happening, because there will still be provision for seeking the approval of the Secretary of State. He pointed out that Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, said :
For that purpose an education authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State,…
must do so and so.
Surely he realises that the words in Section 7 of the principal Act, the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which he proposes to delete, are :
The functions of an education authority under the foregoing sections… shall be exercised in accordance with schemes prepared as hereinafter provided and approved by the Secretary of State.…
That provision is being wiped out. I want to know what provision there now is for the obtaining of approval.
The position is very unsatisfactory. If approval must be obtained under Section 3, what about the other Sections in which approval is not even mentioned? "Further education" is described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 1 (5). Approval is not mentioned there. The Joint Under-Secretary has been too clever by half. He has told us that what has been done up to now has been all right. Nobody has complained of what has been done, but the fact that everything has been going on reasonably well hitherto is no guarantee that in changed circumstances it will continue to do so.
We are complaining about the removal of the necessity to put forward schemes and the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that the schemes are adequate

and that they are submitted. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the position was all right with primary and secondary education, because there there was a certain amount of stability. If that is true and this argument is applicable only for adult education, why does he insist on the removal of Section 3 which relates not only to adult education, but to primary and secondary education as well? He has tripped on his own arguments about stability and fluidity. We are prepared to agree that it may not be necessary for formal schemes to be prepared, but it is no answer to the difficulty for the Joint Under-Secretary to say that he is getting ad hoc schemes, which means, of course, that the Department knows what the authorities are trying to do. He is removing the necessity to submit schemes for approval or modification and putting nothing in its place. That is the difficulty and danger.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State is laying the way open for local authorities to discourage people who have been advancing education, especially adult education. He is doing no service to Scottish education. He fails to realise that he is taking away a duty from the education authority and a responsibility from the Secretary of State. That makes us suspicious, especially when we set it against the background of the Tory attitude to education. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will not let this matter go lightly.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill :—

The Committee divided : Ayes 185. Noes 126.

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Dance, J. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Deedes, W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Arbuthnot, John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Armstrong, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Drayson, G. B.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Carr, Robert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cole, Norman
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Enroll, F. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooper, A. E.
Farcy-Jones, F. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fell, A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fisher, Nigel


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Body, R. F.
Crouch, R. F.
Freeth, D. K.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cunningham, Knox
Gibson-Watt, D.




Gower, H. R.
Leather, E. H. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rawlinson, Peter


Green, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Renton, D. L. M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert
Robertson, Sir David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, R. C.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McKibbin, A. J.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hay, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maddan, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Holt, A. F.
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hope, Lord John
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wade, D. W.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Oakshott, H. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pott, H. P.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Keegan, D.
Powell, J. Enoch



Kershaw, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Kirk, P. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Messer, Sir F.


Anderson, Frank
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mulley, F. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hannan, W.
Owen, W. J.


Boyd, T. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holmes, Horace
Pentland, N.


Callaghan, L. J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Coldrick, W.
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Redhead, E. C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McInnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.







Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)



Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Willey, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(FURTHER PROVISION AS TO ENFORCEMENT OF ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL.)

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out subsection (3).
The provisions of the Clause mean that an attendance order, once issued, follows the child throughout its school life. In addition to that, the Clause gives school management committees the power, which they do not at present possess, of being able to summon children directly to the juvenile courts, and I do not think that that is a good thing either.
In his reply on Second Reading, the Lord Advocate stated that information about a child's school attendance was conveyed to the new school under present practice, and that it was not, therefore, such a very serious change. My recollection is that when a child leaves a school and goes to another, his attendances, both actual and possible, are shown on his medical card which accompanies him. My retort to the Lord Advocate when he put up that defence was that that was a school practice which we all accept—the card goes with other cards, and it is not singled out—but the Clause means that the potential delinquent will go to his new school almost with a brass band playing and flags flying. He will be singled out because an attendance order has been issued against him. He will go to the new school as a marked person. If the Lord Advocate's argument were sound, that the Clause makes no difference, then he destroys his own argument. If the Clause makes no difference, why insert it in the Bill?
However, I oppose the Clause because I feel that it does make a difference. I have indicated that it is a case not simply of doing what the Lord Advocate has said, making the child's actual and possible attendances known, but of singling out the child, for he carries with him to his new school an attachment as a result of which he will become a person known to have a record, and that is not a good practice to establish.

Also, school management committees are now to have a much greater power than at present; that of directly taking children to the juvenile courts. I believe that this springs from the power given under subsection (3). The argument is that this will speed up the process for dealing with truants and persistent absentees. That may be true, but if we want to do that, we ought not to do it at the expense of the child himself. It is surely possible for us to speed up methods of dealing with habitual offenders other than by attaching stigmas to them.

The period of a month usually given as a warning by school management committees could easily be reduced to a fortnight. There is nothing sacrosanct about the period of which is now allowed to elapse before further steps are taken to deal with the offender. I am sure that we could speed up our methods without advertising to the new school the child's previous absence, for that is unfair to him.

I hope that since Thursday the Lord Advocate has thought over the problem. It stretches through the whole Clause. I feel that if subsection (3) is deleted the rest of the Clause will not have much effect, and it is because of that that I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I have great sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said about the stigma. We should all like to see a fresh start, particularly in the case of a juvenile, as often as we can. On the other hand, we must see that our educational system is carried out.
At present, if a child, with his parents, moves from one education authority area to another at a time when an attendance order is in operation, the attendance order lapses. It does not seem to us to be reasonable to allow the attendance order to lapse and then to have to take out a new one. After all, an attendance order is not so much a stigma on the child as it is on the parents. If the Amendment were accepted, we should be left in the present, position, namely,


that if the child did not continue to go to school after the move a new attendance order would be necessary.

Mr. Rankin: At that point the Lord Advocate has destroyed his whole case, because the attendance order is issued conditionally, being subject to the child not doing something. The child is thus carrying an attendance order before he has committed any crime at his new school. To save himself, the Lord Advocate has to say "if something happens" when nothing may happen.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member suggests that merely because a child transfers from one education authority to another it is obvious that no attendance order will be necessary. That is not necessarily so. If the child goes to a new authority with an attendance order, which will no doubt be amended or endorsed, and then attends the school as he is supposed to do, the attendance order can be annulled.
The hon. Member referred to what I said on Second Reading, that the record goes with the child. There is no additional publicity merely because the new authority is in a position to endorse or amend the order than there is if the record, without the attendance order, is sent. The new authority know all about the attendance order having been made. At the present moment it lapses, but as a question of convenience it is much better that the attendance order should continue. In all the circumstances, I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out subsections (5) and (6).
These subsections make a considerable change in the present procedure. At present the education authority may decide that parents should be taken to court if they persistently keep a child away from school. Under Section 38 of the principal Act, the court may decide, whether or not it has recorded a conviction against the parents, that the child should thereafter appear at a juvenile court. The process, first, is that of the local education authority taking the parents to court, and the court thereafter deciding that the child should come before a juvenile court.

Under the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of the Clause, the child may be ordered to a juvenile court without the parents first having appeared in court. That seems to us on this side of the Committee a very bad thing indeed. I have always felt that children should, where-ever possible, be kept outside law courts.
I think that a child who appears before a court regularly may not in adult life have the same respect or perhaps fear of courts that most of us would like children to have. There is also a stigma attached to the child who has to appear in court. In speaking on the previous Amendment, the Lord Advocate said that the stigma was on the parents more than on the child, and for that reason he was trying to persuade my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. Subsection (5) is quite definitely putting a stigma on the child before every other means has been used to make the child's attendance at school regular. It seems that not only legislators but anyone interested in the well-being and welfare of children ought to realise that before a child is taken to court for any cause at all, far less than for non-attendance at school, every effort should be made in other ways to remedy whatever is at fault. It is because we feel that this is a very great departure from the provisions under Section 38 of the principal Act and because we wish to protect our children so far as possible from any stigma, that we feel very strongly that subsections (5) and (6) should be deleted.

The Lord Advocate: On the occasion of the Second Reading, I agreed with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) as to the undesirability of children being brought into court where that could be avoided. Obviously, one wants where possible to keep children away from the atmosphere of the criminal courts. As the hon. Lady knows full well, the juvenile courts are designed for the care and protection of the child. The child goes there under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, for example, if it is in need of care and protection. In other words, the child does not go there necessarily because it has committed any offence, as it may have done if it were going to a criminal court.
The object of these particular subsections, which the Amendment is designed


to remove, was to meet a situation in which we thought that it was desirable that the local authority should be entitled, and the Committee will note the words :
… if satisfied that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of securing the regular attendance of the child at school"—
I particularly stress the words : "if satisfied that it is necessary so to do"—
… direct that the child be brought before a juvenile court.
The Bill in its present form does not say say that the local authority "shall." Here again, as in many other parts of the Bill and in the 1946 Act, discretion is given to the local authority as to whether or not it shall take the child to the juvenile court. At the moment it cannot do so.

Mr. Woodburn: The Lord Advocate seems to be explaining this matter in very technical terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has put a case which seems to require more human reasons. Education has been going on in Scotland for over fifty years. It has managed up to now without these provisions, and I should like to know what are the circumstances which have arisen now that require these entirely new provisions to be put into Scottish education legislation. Has there been some difficulty arising or has some one merely been sitting in an office and just wondering whether he could make any alterations to the Bill? There must have been something that inspired these provisions. Can we be given the reasons behind them?

The Lord Advocate: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman asks me why this provision has suddenly emerged today and how we got on without it in the past. There are among others, two particular circumstances which this amendment of the law is designed to meet. The first is to meet the case where the parent has done his best to make his child attend school—the wayward and the difficult child—and it is felt desirable that the education authority should be entitled to bring the child before a juvenile court instead of prosecuting the completely innocent parent.
The second circumstance is where a parent has previously been prosecuted and convicted but that experience has not had the result of making him see that his child attends schools regularly. In that

case, it seems to be idle to go on prosecuting the parent and more sensible to try a new approach. This provision would allow the education authority to bring the child before a juvenile court but it is not—I stress this—obligatory on the local authority to do so. It is to enable it to do so if necessary. In other words, the authority can say "If we think that this new approach is a good one, let us proceed by it rather than wait until we have had to prosecute the parents." That is the reason. I think it is perfectly human, and the intention is for the benefit of the child, as are all these approaches to the juvenile courts.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 43 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the beginning, to insert :
After paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section forty-three of the principal Act (which empowers education authorities to enable persons to take advantage of educational facilities) there shall be inserted the following paragraph :—

"(d) to grant allowances to persons between fifteen and sixteen years of age who are pupils in special schools."
This was a matter which I raised on Second Reading, and I put down the Amendment because I want to have clear information upon it. According to the principal Act, the local authorities are empowered to make grants to children over school-leaving age. The normal school-leaving age is 15, but for a child who is in attendance at a special school the compulsory school-leaving age is not 15 but 16. I am not sure whether there is power for the local authorities to give a grant to the parents of children who, because of either a mental disability or a physical disability, are in special schools. I do not know whether a maintenance grant can be given during the period from 15 years of age until they reach 16 years of age, when they may leave school.
6.0 p.m.
If there is not provision for such a grant under the 1946 Act or any other Act, it seems to me that such a provision ought to be inserted into the Bill. When a child which is handicapped physically or mentally so that it cannot work reaches the age of 16, a weekly allowance


is paid by the National Assistance Board, and that weekly allowance is not dependent in any way on the parents' income. In other words, a weekly allowance is paid for the child when it reaches the age of 16, and it is paid without any family means test or parental means test; but there is a gap between 15 years of age and 16 years of age, which, as far as I can find out, is not covered, although normal children who stay at secondary schools after 15 years of age are given a maintenance grant if the parents' financial circumstances warrant it. It seems to me that sometimes it is much more difficult and costly to maintain children in the special schools than it is to maintain children in secondary schools. For those reasons I have tabled the Amendment.

Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to consider this matter very seriously? It covers a very human point. I think that the problem of age is already covered in Section 32 of the principal Act, which provides for attendance at school. Subsection (4) reads:
Where an education authority have decided under Section fifty-five of this Act that a child requires special educational treatment, that child shall, unless the said decision is rescinded, be deemed to be of school age until he attains the age of sixteen although the upper limit of school age in relation to other children is less than sixteen.
A child who is handicapped stays at school, compulsorily, until 16 years of age, whereas a normal child can leave school at 15 and can take a job, thus making no extra call upon the parents' resources. A normal child who leaves a primary school and goes to the secondary school can be paid a grant if the parents' resources are insufficient to maintain the child at school. Similarly, a grant can be paid in respect of a child who leaves school at 15 and, for example, takes up a pre-apprenticeship course.
It seems to us that some extra consideration should be given to the parents of handicapped children who are kept compulsorily at school until they are 16. Those parents do not seem to qualify for the same assistance as that which is given to the parents of a normal child. Moreover, a handicapped child finds it more difficult to fit into normal employment. In passing, I would suggest to the Joint

Under-Secretary of State that it might be worth while looking into the need for immediate vocational training for such a handicapped child when it leaves school at the age of 16.
For those added reasons we hope that the Government will feel that these considerations are worthy of examination and that we may have a favourable reply from the Minister.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said, this is a human problem. I confess frankly to the Committee that if I had only my own thoughts to consider, I should be disposed to accept the Amendment, but there are difficulties which I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who has held my office, will understand. It is quite true that Parliament provided in the 1945 Act that power should be given to local authorities to give bursaries to children, but under the Act that power was limited to children over school age. That has been the position ever since, and the position is also the same under the English Measures; that is to say, it applies to pupils whose parents are free to withdraw them from school, or to keep them there longer.
We are concerned here only with the handicapped children attending a special school. Thousands of partly handicapped children attend ordinary schools, and we are concerned only with the thousand—I think that is the number—between the ages of 15 and 16 who attend special schools or classes. In their case, the parents are obliged to keep the children at school until they are 16. For them, that is the official leaving age.
I quite understand that it might seem anomalous that some children get an allowance between the ages of 15 and 16 while others do not, but, of course, if we accepted the Amendment we should remove one anomaly and replace it with another. The new anomaly would be that for handicapped children an allowance was paid before the school leaving age whereas the same benefit was not extended to other children.
For that reason, those who framed the 1945 Act—and hon. Members opposite were concerned in it as much as we were—thought it right, on due reflection, to make this distinction, and I do not think


there are any grounds for changing our minds and changing the law now, much as I sympathise with the spirit underlying the Amendment. It may be that other means should be provided for meeting the point ; I do not know. I have the warmest sympathy for those children and their parents, but I do not think that this is the proper place to put right this anomaly, if hon. Members so regard it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: With all possible respect, I simply cannot follow the Minister's argument. He made a speech in favour of the Amendment and ended by saying that he came down against it. I should have thought that of all the Amendments on the Order Paper this was perhaps most peculiarly fitted to this kind of Bill. The Government's purpose in the Bill, although not that of the Opposition, is to put right certain anomalies which have been shown to arise in the course of the working of the 1946 Act. Here, above all, is a most glaring anomaly ; it is not merely the kind of bureaucratic difficulty with which we dealt on the previous Amendment, because here we have, as the Minister admitted, a most human difficulty. It is an anomaly which is quite indefensible on human grounds.
In the light of the speech which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has made, I plead with him to consider the matter a little further. I understand that he cannot, having made that speech, say he will accept the Amendment now, but I do ask him to say he will think about it overnight and say something more about it tomorrow on Report. I beg him to give further consideration to the matter in the light of the arguments he has adduced.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should have said before, in support of the view which I have had to take, that it is significant that in the ten years since the passing of the Act until the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) raised the matter a month or two ago in a Question, we have not had one single representatation on this matter. That seems to me to strengthen our view that this Bill is not the right place in which to make a change of this kind. It is not suitable in this Bill. I am sorry, I am not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hannan: There are two or three things which the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that I must ask him to reconsider. The first is this. He himself admitted that there were only a thousand children affected. A child of 15 attending a secondary school, and attending under the law, qualifies, or its parents qualify, provided that they show need, and that child can receive a grant. It seems quite mistaken, therefore, that another child, also under the law and compulsorily, should be kept at school until he is 16, and not be permitted to receive the grant. It seems especially mistaken if the child is otherwise handicapped.
The Government say now, ten or eleven years after the passing of the Act, that they can do nothing about this anomaly. The Joint Under-Secretary said that my hon. and right hon. Friends had some responsibility in the matter when they were in office, but he knows that there are many questions, some of them quite small, which arise during experience of the working of a Measure and that it is the purpose of Bills of this sort, as it is the purpose of this Bill, to put right such anomalies. That is the reason he himself adduced in favour of the Bill. Some of the things he proposes to do under the Bill seem to us of very small importance indeed, of much smaller importance than this question.
Hon. Members from Scotland would take great pride in thinking they were helping a thousand handicapped children and their parents at what is one of the most difficult stages of the children's education. I plead with all the earnestness I have that this is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter about which the Government should say they can do better than we can. We have had that sort of argument far too often. Here is a proven case, and it is our plain duty, if there is hardship, to try to overcome it. Here is a proven case to bring a thousand children into the same right as other children have to receive grant. To reject this case is to carry orthodoxy far too far. At least the Joint Under-Secretary should say that he will reconsider the matter. Tomorrow he should give a more favourable reply, to give a fillip to people in this category.

Miss Herbison: I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary of State can give the guarantee for which my hon. Friends have


asked, that tomorrow on Report, having considered the matter further, he will make another pronouncement?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the hon. Lady asks me to consider it, of course I will, but I can give no hope that this can be done. I cannot, for the reasons I have stated, much as I should have liked to have been able to have done so on human grounds.

6.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary has shown by his speech that what we are asking for is not outrageous. He has given various reasons why he cannot make this provision in the Bill, but I do not think any of them will stand up to examination.
He mentioned the 1945 Act. It was rushed through by the Caretaker Government. I was not a Member at the time, but I understand there were discussions through the usual channels, and that we on this side were informed that, provided we dropped all the Amendments we had down to that Measure, it could go on the Statute Book, and that consequently that thick Bill was put through the Scottish Grand Committee in one morning, so that there was then no chance at all for these matters to be discussed.
I moved the Amendment in the way I did in the hope of finding out if there was any other way in which these children could be helped. There is no other way at all. We want these children to stay at

school until they are 16 years of age. That is all the more reason why we as legislators should make this simple Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary said that one reason why he could not accept the Amendment was that there had been no representations made about this matter at any time. However, the parents of these thousand children are not organised in a way to make representations about this to Members of this Committee or to Ministers. That does not mean we have no knowledge of their views. I raised this matter on Second Reading because of constituents of mine whose children are at special schools and who are finding the greatest difficulty in clothing and feeding their children. As I said then, many of these children are abnormal in quite a number of ways, and need far more spent on them when they are between 15 and 16 years of age than other children of that age who have all their faculties, and who are given grants by the local authorities.

It seems to me that as the hon. Gentleman himself thinks this Amendment a good idea and yet cannot give us any hope of its being accepted, and as he has given us no valid reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted, we shall have to carry it to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted :—

The Committee divided : Ayes 111, Noes 157.

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[6.18 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W.
Lawson, G. M.


Anderson, Frank
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lindgren, G. S.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hamilton, W. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Harman, W.
McInnes, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hastings, S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian


Chapman, W. D.
Holman, P.
Mitchison, G. R.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace
Monslow, W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Holt, A. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Orbach, M.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, W. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Delargy, H. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Parker, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pentland, N.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.




Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Randall, H. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Redhead, E. C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Winterbottom, Richard


Ross, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Royle, C.
Wade, D. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, W. N.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Oakshott, H. D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Green, A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Page, R. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Paton, John


Atkins, H. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Barter, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Pott, H. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Raikes, Sir victor


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ramsden, J. E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Black, C. W.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Ridsdale, J. E.


Body, R. F.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Robertson, Sir David


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braine, B. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Russell, R. S.


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Iremonger, T. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Campbell, Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Channon, H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Teeling, W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, J. A.
Thomas, Leslle (Canterbury)


Crouch, R. F.
Kirk, P. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dance, J. C. G.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Vosper, D, F.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wall, Major Patrick


du Cann, E. D. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Erroll, F. J.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fell, A.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Fisher, Nigel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marshall, Douglas
Wood, Hon. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Freeth, D. K.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Gibson-Watt, D.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gower, H. R.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Mr. Barber.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Clause 4, by which the Government propose to amend Section 43 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is a subject on which I find myself in the strange position of being able to congratulate the Government. I am a man of boundless generosity, but for a long time I have

seldom found myself in the happy position of being able to congratulate the Government on doing anything. I am glad to see something here which we applaud, but that is no reason why something good should not be made better. We feel that "may" should be deleted and "shall" inserted.

The Clause makes possible the provision of regulations by which the Secre-


tary of State will determine what allowances, bursaries, grants, scholarships and the like shall be paid to persons, including those over age, who are carrying on their education. It has certainly been a snag hitherto that in the calculation of these allowances it has not been possible to make some arrangements whereby maintenance of dependants shall be part of the consideration. In so far as the Clause says that in future the maintenance of parents or dependants may be included, that is an improvement, but if we have found it a snag in the past and it is desirable that it should be included now, surely we should not tie ourselves to "may" but should insist upon" shall".

Ever since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I have heard arguments about the desirability or otherwise of turning "may" into "shall", and it has been said that "may" more or less means "shall". I have heard Secretaries of State, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) say this, but I have always been rather doctrinaire and have held the view that if one inserts "may" it implies the possibility of "may not". I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate—because I am sure that this is a learned, legal matter—will be able to reassure me today and that, knowing that in the past I have not been reassured by legal argument that "may" means "shall", the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that power conferred by the Clause shall be exercised, and we therefore accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I beg to thank the Joint Under-Secretary and the Government for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at the end to add :
(3B) The said regulations may include a provision requiring an education authority to make awards to a person training in a recognised professional course at a university or college or other institution of higher education who receives a small salary or emolument paid in respect of part-time services given by a person to an employer as a recognised part of his professional training.

The Amendment arises from some comments which I made on Second Reading concerning the position of various students who are, technically speaking, part-time students because they are in employment, in practice, in their profession.
6.30 p.m.
The Amendment is framed in restrained and deliberative terms. The reason for the word "may" is the difficult position which arises in deciding between the different kinds of part-time students. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) first raised this matter in 1953, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in referring to the anomaly of this position said :
Hon. Members may say that it is absurd, but the difficulty is that if one was to make special provision for professional students one would have to make an equivalent provision for industrial students.
To that end the Amendment is phrased "may" in order to allow, within the detailed regulations, a chance to distinguish between one category and another. Not, I would add, that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee wish any discrimination to take place in the wider context of training, but in the context of training for professions we think that at this juncture it is fair to leave that provision in the hands of the Department.
In my remarks during the Second Reading debate, I tried to make out the case for the fact that we were experiencing a falling off in recruitment to various professions, in particular to the law profession. I tried to submit some figures to that end, and I tried to illustrate the fact that it could not be unconnected with the rather adverse economic position in which students training for these professions find themselves.
For example, at the present time a law student receives as his grant a maximum of £47 if he is earning £50 in an office and if, as well, his parents are not earning more than £400 a year. I have here a document provided by several students who carried out a survey under the auspices of the Department of Social and Economic Research at Glasgow University on the income and expenditure of various students there. Those referred to in the document are law students, and I


would point out that within the £47 grant a law student receives £21 for his fees, £4 for his books, £2 for membership of societies, £5 travelling expenses and £15 for meals. Various anomalies arise. For example, the average amount spent on books is £5, whereas the university calendar suggests £12 and a professor in the Faculty of Law at Glasgow University, Professor David Walker, has stated that a worthwhile law student should spend £15 a year on such books.
In other words, this submission is to the effect that it is difficult for a law student who is conscientiously and seriously trying to do so to carry out his obligations within the £47 grant. That applies with equal force to accountants and to various other young professional people. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley, it is worth while mentioning, stated in his speech on the same date :
While going over the papers I discovered that a young man from one of the Highland counties had written a series of extremely good papers which were marred by one or two extraordinary errors. The papers showed that he had a thorough knowledge of academic law, but very little knowledge of its practical application. After the examinations I ascertained that, contrary to the usual practice, he was not doing, at one and the same time an apprenticeship and studying for the degree of bachelor of laws."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 556–564.]
There are three points on which there is considerable dissatisfaction. The first is that the obvious undesirability of a young man taking an academic training without having at the same time the practical aspects of that training shows itself on such occasions and also later in life. A kind of professional training which calls for practical experience with academic development is just the kind of training that can go awry if the two do not run together at the time of the training.
Secondly, it tends to encourage students who find it financially difficult to take this course to take a full-time course instead and thus, I suggest, to incur a little more expense to the State than would be desirable. My main argument, however, is that it works substantially against the financial interests of those who try to take the two together for the sake of a better course.
I understand that the Law Society of Scotland, anxious about the position, contacted the Scottish Office some time

ago and represented to it that these students might well be classified as full-time students. I respect the arguments used by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in correspondence with various bodies, which I have seen, that it is undesirable to make them full-time students. I am not too happy about that, but for the moment I accept the arguments, so I am prepared that they should be judged as part-time students, and that is why the Amendment is framed in these terms.
Before, however, we give these students a tremendous advantage over others, let us look at the position of the full-time student in Scotland who is studying medicine. He has three, four or five summers in which to earn money and, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State has so often reminded students, it is an obligation on them to earn some money during that time, and I would not gainsay it. It is important to realise that, without reference to their grant, such students in the summer months earn anything from £60 to £100, particularly if they are employed by public enterprise in Scotland which pays reasonably good wages. But a student in law or accountancy has only a fortnight's holiday in the year in which to earn money if he does not want to go on holiday. So he can earn very little, and all he shows on the income side is £50 and £70 a year. So the full-time student is better off financially because he can make more in wages than can the part-time student all the year round.
It is an undesirable and an onerous position and I hope that this is the juncture at which we can alter it. The Joint Under-Secretary of State promised in the House on 11th February, 1953, to look into the matter and to try to find a way of meeting it. This is now October, 1956. I do not think we have rushed into suggesting that an agreement should be reached now. I have tried to suggest a way. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the wording of the Amendment I am prepared to withdraw it, if he is prepared on Report stage to submit an acceptable Amendment to meet this position.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give a sympathetic reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) ; indeed, I hope he will accept this Amendment, and I trust that the words are appropriate for inclusion in


a Statute. If not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept them in principle and suggest appropriate words tomorrow.
My hon. Friend has called attention to the fact that the word "may" is included in the Amendment and not the word "shall". So, if this Amendment is accepted, the hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to make regulations forthwith. He can have consultations with the professional organisations concerned and in due course, I hope, bring forward appropriate regulations.
The Joint Under-Secretary will recall that two of my hon. Friends and myself went to see him some time ago, some time subsequent to the debate to which reference has been made, in order to discuss this matter. Then, as on the occasion of the earlier debate in 1952, the Joint Under-Secretary found himself in some difficulty. He did not want to appear to be doing something for the professional apprentices which he was unable to do for the industrial apprentices. I wish the Committee to appreciate that there is all the difference in the world between the two. The industrial apprentices normally start their apprenticeship at 15 or 16 years of age with an emolument greatly in excess of the professional apprentice, at 17, 18, 19 or 20 years of age.
There are some other considerations which have to be taken into account. As my hon. Friend made clear, we have young men who go to the university or school institutions and take a full-time course. But the educational advice they would get would be in favour of their taking a part-time course. But they cannot afford to take a part-time course and, as the law stands, they are obliged to take a full-time course. I have had this experience myself. I know this is considered to apply generally or most extensively to law students, law apprentices and accountancy apprentices.
I had cause to consult the professor of architecture of the Royal Technical College about whether it was better for a young man intending to go in for architecture to take a full-time course at the Royal Technical College and the School of Art, or to take an apprenticeship and do evening classes and the like. The professor of architecture had no doubt at all that it was far better for the

young man to start an apprenticeship and to go into an office straight away ; and to do evening classes and later have some full-time studies at the Royal Technical College or the School of Art. He said that he had within the building young men who were doing it both ways. The young men who were doing a full-time course included some very smart and clever young men and he was producing some wonderful artists from among them. But among the part-time students he was producing better architects.
In order to get this thing into proper perspective, I consulted the Director of Education as to which was the better course. He too had no hesitation in giving me advice. He said that the full-time course was best, because the young man's father would never be able to afford a part-time course. It is wrong that we should waste the taxpayer's money. That is what we are doing if we give a full students' maintenance grant to attract young men into a full-time course when the advice from the professor in charge of the subject is that the student should take a part-time course and do useful work in an office.
I think it possible—I want to put this on record—that the employers of some of these professional apprentices are not paying them enough. I think it possible that in some cases they should be paid more than they are now getting. Then they would be less in need of a maintenance grant. I put this to the Joint Under-Secretary, who agrees with what I have said. If he thinks that is so and appreciates that there is a gross, or at least a serious, waste of public money under the present system, and that it would be better for some full-time students to take part-time courses, could he not undertake to consult those responsible societies and professional associations to get agreement among them about what would be an appropriate salary or award for the professional apprentice? What should the professional apprentice get from his employer?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: May I remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, until quite recently, it was the other way round? Because of the excellent professional training he was receiving, the apprentice who indentured himself to the


architect or accountant, or whoever it might be, actually paid a fee. The hon. Gentleman should realise that not only is the apprentice rendering service to the professional firm by whom he is employed, but that he is also getting valuable training.

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate that. I believe that in England a number of apprentices have to pay for the first two years of their apprenticeship and so do not receive any salary at all, although I believe that that is not so in Scotland.
But I take the view, on fairly good advice, that some employers, particularly in the counties, should pay more money to their apprentices. I have been told that law apprentices do not earn anything at all and are a positive drain upon their employer's resources for the first two years of their apprenticeship. That may or may not be the case. What I am arguing is that the apprentice might start at £50 a year and get, say, £65 or £70 in his second year. The Government should consult with the responsible professional associations, and if they found that was a sum which was fixed and generally applicable and accepted as being adequate, they should, by means of the regulations they make under this Amendment, make up that sum to the maintenance grant which they would give to the same person were he a full-time student at a university or central institution. That is all I am saying, and it seems a reasonable proposition.
In many cases, it would mean paying in grant to the student less than half the amount the Government are now paying to him. At present the student is full-time, but under the new arrangement he would be a part-time student and would be taking the training that his educational adviser thinks he should take to become a good professional man at the end of the day. Obviously, there is much to be said for this Amendment, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not push it aside as something which must wait until some future date.
There is no comparison between the apprentices dealt with in this Amendment and industrial apprentices who go into an apprenticeship in the building industry, bricklaying, joinery or as an electrician or plumber or what we will. They start an apprenticeship at a wage above the amount which they would get from an

educational grant were they to go to any college or any institution under the direction of the education authorities.
This is a problem. We are having our young professionals trained in the wrong way. That is not my view only ; it is the view of the professors. It is up to us to modify our grant arrangements and to see that these people are trained in the best way—and, since we can see that by training them in the best way we can also save a little money, I should have thought that that would appeal to the Government. I am sure that the Chancellor would thank the Joint Under-Secretary if he accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I shall not stand long between the Minister and the Committee, but before my hon. Friend replies I want to say that I hope he will not reject the Amendment out of hand. It seems to me that the case put forward is a reasonable one and, as those who have moved and seconded the Amendment have sought to show, it might well save us money in the long run. I am quite certain from my own professional experience that the man who has practical experience of working as he is learning is likely to be a better professional man in the end than if he had absorbed all his learning in a school.
Time and again I have seen it demonstrated in professional work that the man who is articled to a good firm is learning the whole time. He has his feet on the ground, if I may so put it, in a way which the purely theoretical student has not. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) pointed out, the theoretical student may be a very good artist, and he may know all the rules, but he is found out time and again on little practical points, and it is those practical points which so often count for so much in professional work.
I think it would be a good thing to push the young a little bit in that way, and from the point of view of saving the Exchequer money there would seem to be a strong case to be made out for the Amendment. We have had a good deal to talk of things which are mandatory and things which are permissive. I understand that this is a permissive Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not reject it out of hand without serious thought; indeed, I hope that he may feel it possible to accept it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) moved the Amendment very fairly and persuasively and introduced one or two ingenious thoughts. The Amendment uses the word "may" instead of "shall", which is attractive, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) made an ingenious suggestion that the Amendment would save money. All that adds to the attraction of the proposition. But I would invite the Committee to look at the facts. It is not quite so easy as it would appear.
Section 43 of the 1946 Act empowers education authorities to award bursaries to enable persons to take advantage of educational facilities. The Amendment refers to apprentices. Apprenticeship, being a form of employment, cannot by itself be regarded as an educational facility, under the terms of the Act. It is only when apprentices attend classes concurrently with their apprenticeships that they become eligible, like any other employed persons in a similar position, for a bursary. The bursary covers fees, books, meals, etc., for those part-time persons attending classes, but not the cost of maintenance, since only full-time students are eligible for an allowance in respect of maintenance, and it has been decided that the apprentice, being employed in an office for the greater part of the day, can be regarded only as a part-time student.
The hon. Member did not disagree with that. I should like to take up his point concerning books. If he represents to me later that the grant received by a law student for books it inadequate, I shall be very ready to look at the matter, because we do not want our law students to be out of pocket over books. But that is a sideline.
To treat apprentices as full-time students flies in the face of the facts. They are not full-time students and. despite what the hon. Member for Hamilton has said so persuasively, to treat them as such would open the door to similar claims—which I think would be well-founded—from large numbers of industrial apprentices, who also take classes concurrently with their apprenticeships but who, unlike many of the professional apprentices, are unable to maintain themselves on their wages.
If the Committee will allow me to do so, I should like to point to the real

trouble underlying this problem. Speaking with great respect, I would say that it lies in the outmoded conditions of employment and training which have survived in certain professions. I say that with great respect because I find myself surrounded by professional men, but I am afraid that it is the fact.
I should like to put three considerations to the Committee. First, professional apprentices have hitherto been paid by their employers at such comparatively low rates that they have had difficulty in maintaining themselves, even when living at home. We all know cases like that. This is a matter to be remedied by the professions concerned and not by the expenditure of public funds. I really think that that is a doctrine which the Committee must accept.
Secondly—although I listened with great respect to what was said about part-time courses and work in offices and so on—this arrangement, by which apprentices, besides working in an office during the day also attend classes at night, is now becoming regarded in many quarters as a little out of date. It is certainly regarded as out of date in many industries. As the Committee knows very well, many industries in Scotland—and I wish there were more—have adopted what they call the sandwich course, whereby the apprentice is released from work for a period, during which he is allowed to pursue full-time study. For such a period he becomes a full-time student, eligible for the grant and all the rest of it.
Thirdly—and I draw this to the Committee's special attention—it is significant that, even in the professional field, arrangements of a kind equivalent to the sandwich course have already been adopted in the case of architecture, surveying and pharmacy. As hon. Members know, a very interesting thing has happened recently. The same idea has also been recommended for adoption in accountancy.
A report of a special committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, dealing with the examination and training of apprentices—which I commend to the attention of hon. Members—recommends that the present system, whereby accountancy apprentices are expected to serve in an office and at the same time to fit in university


classes and the attendant studies, should be abandoned, in view of its obviously unsatisfactory character from the point of view both of the apprentice and of his employer. As an alternative arrangement the report recommends that chartered accountant apprentices should be released in the third year of their apprenticeship for a period of full-time study over an academic session, during which they would take the requisite university classes.
If the Institute of Chartered Accountants adopts this recommendation it will automatically solve the problem for the largest number of professional apprentices mentioned in Amendment. In fact, it will affect 1,800, by far the largest number.
7.0 p.m.
The Government consider that these developments in the professional field justify them in the view they have taken against treating apprentices who are part-time students as if they were whole-time students. The solution of a similar problem raised tonight in respect to law apprentices, of whom there are only about 300, should be sought, I suggest, on lines similar to those suggested by the accountants and not by regarding these apprentices, despite the clear facts of the situation, as full-time students, or, alternatively, by treating apprenticeship as an educational facility.
The hon. Member for Greenock told us that to his knowledge the overall number of apprentices to the legal profession is falling off. That may well be for this very reason, and it may also well be that the legal profession is considering this problem quite seriously in rather the same way as is the accountancy profession. At any rate, I really do not think that it is proper for the Committee to adopt a solution of this kind.
I was invited to say whether we would have consultations. The hon. Member for Hamilton reminded me of the meeting that he and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and others had with me. I well remember that meeting at which I undertook to take action, to make inquiries, and so on. We made immediate contact with two or three of these professional bodies and had consultations with them. We were not able to persuade them altogether to our way of thinking, but, as I have said,

the accountants seem to be moving in that direction. I can only suggest with great respect, in the company of such distinguished legal experts, that the lawyers might move along similar lines.

Mr. Willis: Which were the professional bodies consulted?

Mr. Stewart: We had consultations with the legal and accountancy professions and another professional body which I have forgotten. For these reasons, I am afraid that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. Indeed, I ask the Committee to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF TRANSPORT AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES.)

Amendment made : In page 4, line 25, after "under," insert "paragraph (a) of."—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end to add :
Where the person is not in gainful employment the education authority shall pay the whole of the expenses necessarily incurred by that person in respect of such attendance.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Joint Under-Secretary of State pointed out that the provision of Clause 5 (3) applied not only to students going, perhaps, from school to a central institution for the purposes of examination, but that it might apply to teachers and other people who were already working. Because of that we have put down this Amendment which covers only those not in gainful employment.
It has always seemed to me that the student who lives in the country suffers many disadvantages. Over the years, some of these disadvantages have been wiped away by legislation. The pupil who now has to travel from a village to a central secondary school automatically and without a means test has his or her travelling expenses paid. That is one of the many improvements that have been made over the years.
If a student lives in the district where the central institution is located, that student is easily able to attend to take the examination, and, possibly, can get home for whatever meal is needed during the day. But if a student has to travel


from a rural area to a central institution in a town some distance away in order to take an examination he or she might be involved in quite a bit of expense. Therefore, it seems to us that it should be mandatory upon the education authority to pay the legitimate expenses incurred by such a pupil.
I do not know whether the Amendment as worded is in correct form, but I cannot visualise the Joint Under-Secretary saying that it is an Amendment which for any reason at all the Government cannot accept. I hope that this is the second Amendment that the Government are going to accept today.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am in entire agreement with the object which the hon. Lady has in mind. I recognise that in the case of students coming from far away or of somebody attending in Edinburgh from the North of Scotland steps should be taken to pay their expenses. I do not dispute that at all, but, again, there is the difficulty of translating one's objectives. With respect, I do not think the hon. Lady's Amendment is the right one.
May I remind the Committee where we stand in this matter? The Clause with which we are dealing amends Section 45 of the 1946 Act. It widens the powers of education authorities regarding the provision of transport and the payment of travelling expenses. I think that a good thing to do. The new subsection (3) is added in order to give the authorities the power, in their discretion, to pay the whole or part of the expenses incurred by a person who is required to attend an educational institution for the purposes of an examination or an interview.
As I understand it, what the hon. Lady wants is for the education authority to be obliged to pay the whole of the expenses when such a person is not in gainful occupation. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that a person in gainful employment, whether living in Edinburgh or Caithness, would have to have the whole of his or her expenses paid. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone living in Edinburgh who has to attend St. Andrew's House should have his bus fare paid. That does not make sense.
The other reason why we cannot accept the Amendment is that in most instances

—and I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate this—the educational institution to which the candidate goes for an interview is not under the control of the local authority. It would surely be wrong to oblige an authority to meet expenditure over which it has no control.
In the 1945 debate, Tom Johnston and the late Mr. Joseph Westwood and others pleaded over and over again with the House and the Committee to recognise the responsibility of local authorities. We give local authorities the power to act reasonably, wisely and sensibly. That is what the Bill does. To compel them to do certain things is not the proper way of treating local authorities. The Bill gives them the broad hint that we expect them to pay reasonable expenses. I think that we must leave the discretion to the local authority. For that reason, and because what the Amendment proposes is not in keeping with the traditions of this House, I respectfully suggest that the Committee should reject the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: Again I do not feel that the Joint Under-Secretary has made out a case for rejecting the Amendment. He began with the usual phrase that he was in sympathy with what the Amendment proposed. Sympathy does not take us far enough, and certainly does not help a student who has been refused such a grant by an education authority.
Indeed, the later remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary were almost a pointer to some education authorities not to accept any such responsibility. He said in effect that local education authorities had no control over, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow University. Students who attend Glasgow or Edinburgh University, or one of our technical colleges, are covered because local authorities are under an obligation, because of regulations made here, to pay the fees of those students and, if necessary, to pay for their books, their travelling expenses, their meals and a maintenance grant over and above those expenses.
If one were to follow the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary to its logical conclusion, one could say that local education authorities could choose to wash their hands of all students immediately the students left the institutions over which those authorities had control. Since with bursaries and grants there are regulations providing for a minimum amount


to be paid and since those regulations are mandatory on education authorities, we are not asking very much in this Amendment when we ask that local education authorities should pay reasonable expenses for the students. This red herring about students in Edinburgh wanting bus fares paid to Edinburgh Corporation is nonsense. Since the Joint Under-Secretary is sympathetic towards the Amendment, I ask him to reconsider it and possibly tell us tomorrow that he thinks it is just and sensible and that he is prepared to accept it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like to be able to meet the hon. Lady on this issue, but she should recognise that this is a new and beneficial provision. Now, for the first time, a local education authority has the power, if it chooses, to grant a student travelling expenses. That is new and good law and the Government and, I believe, the Opposition believe that education authorities will use this new power to meet the whole of the expenses where that is necessary to avoid hardship to students. In those circumstances, there is no need for the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(DUTIES OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AS TO DENTAL TREATMENT.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, after "dental" to insert "and optical".
Some of my hon. Friends and I are concerned about an omission here. We do not know whether the omission is by accident or design, but we certainly feel that the words "and optical" should be included. As most of us are aware, it is in the early years of school life that many of the optical deficiencies in children emerge. Unless there is a very good and attentive teacher, as well as medical examinations and optical estimates, those deficiencies may not be discerned.
Among children myopia is probably the commonest of childhood complaints, and parents are greatly concerned about the care of their children in this regard. A number of my friends who today suffer from an eye condition fortunately received early treatment and ocular compensation which prevented their eyesight from be- 
coming much worse. I myself, for example, when I was at school, was discovered by a very attentive teacher to have slightly defective eyesight. But for that very kind teacher's discovery I might well have suffered from a more severe degree of myopia than I have at present. Fortunately, my myopia is physical in character, not like that of some of hon. Members elsewhere whose myopia is political and in an almost permanently chronic state. A great deal of ocular discomfort and defect can be prevented if proper examinations are made. It is to that end that I have moved the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will bear with me, he will see that this otherwise admirable suggestion is unnecessary. Provision for it is already made. On the other hand, the hon. Member, or another hon. Member, may well have a case where the present service is not working. If that be so and if they will be good enough to let me know of it, I shall make immediate inquiries. The present law and practice are adequate.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I understand that the Opticians' Association made representations to the Secretary of State, and I understand that ophthalmologists are interested in this matter. If the law is adequate, why is there this concern among professional organisations as well as parents?

Mr. Stewart: I will deal with that in a moment.
The definition of "medical treatment" which hon. Members will find in Section 143 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, specifically relates to prevention and treatment by a doctor. That has always been interpreted as covering all forms of treatment given by doctors to patients, and it obviously includes treatment given by eye doctors. The definition goes on to make it clear that treatment also includes the provision of appliances recommended by a doctor as part of the treatment, for example, the provision of glasses.
All education authorities use facilities provided by regional hospital boards for examination and treatment of children's eyes. So far as we know, no local


authority has found it necessary to make additional arrangements for those services at its own expense. The supply of ophthalmologists—this is the point which the hon. Member has in mind—varies in different parts of the country. It may be that facilities for the examination and testing of children's eyes in some schools are not as good as in others. If so, I should very much like to be advised about it.
It may be that the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, and if so I should like to hear about it. In his interjection the hon. Member suggested that sight testing facilities for children's eyes could possibly be improved if more use were made of the services of opticians. It has always been considered that school eye services for children should provide for the testing of children's eyesight by persons with full medical and ophthalmic qualifications, not merely opticians with a training in optics. I am advised that any departure from that principle would be bitterly assailed by the ophthalmologists. That is our difficulty.
I would add a few words for the benefit of the Committee. While the first full eye-examination of children takes place at about 7 years of age, if, before that age, school teachers noticed that a child's vision was seriously defective they would bring the case to the notice of the school nurse, who would arrange, if necessary, for the child to be seen at the clinic. In addition, each child on entry at school at the age of 5, has a general medical examination. While that does not include a full eye-examination it brings to light obvious cases of eye defect. Where many thousands of children are being examined it is always possible to miss something here and there. That is why I have asked for details.
To reduce the possibility of happenings of that kind a series of discussions is taking place among interested parties, and it may well be that some useful practical work will follow. I would ask the hon. Member for Greenock to believe me that I am advised by all those who understand this matter that the Amendment is not necessary, because the point is already fully covered in the law as it now stands.

Miss Herbison: We have been told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that

the Amendment is not necessary because the matter is fully covered by legislation. That may be so. The Amendment was put down for probing purposes, because the legislation is not working effectively, I am advised. The Joint Under-Secretary of State put his finger on the difficulty : professional disapproval by the ophthalmologists if the opticians were given any further work.
Surely it is our job, in safeguarding the eyesight of children, to examine these matters as objectively as we can, and if that ultimately means that we stand on somebody's professional toes, that is just too bad. Our job is to take the greatest care of the eyesight of children. The Joint Under-Secretary asked my hon. Friend to bring to his notice any individual case and said that it would get immediate attention, but that is not the job of Members of Parliament. This is something more than a question of individual cases. It is true that the opticians are seriously perturbed about the results of the lack of proper optical care of school children, and they have not been backward in making their representations to the Department of Health. They made suggestions whereby the care of the eyes of school children could be very much improved.
The Joint Under-Secretary says that a child is examined first at about 7 years of age by a doctor who, like most school doctors, probably has had a general training : few, if any, have taken a special course in ophthalmology. I suffered from this lack of care when I was a child. I have had to wear glasses since I was 10. Until I was 17 years of age, I attended school, a local authority school, where from 7 until 17 years of age I was medically examined at the stated periods. Not once was I told that I needed glasses, but I had a most observant mother who found that I needed them, and she took me to an optician. Had she been careless and not so observant I do not know what my eyesight would be like today. This is only one example.
I advise the Joint Under-Secretary of State to talk to some of the other Scottish Ministers to find out their experience in this matter. Although we have an adequate service to care for children's health in most matters, we have neither a sufficient nor an adequate service to save the eyesight of our children.
We shall not press the Amendment to a Division, but we ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to discuss the matter of children's eyes with the Joint Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Department of Health and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to see whether they can move fast in this matter. I hope that they will tread on the toes of some ophthalmologists, and if that is necessary let it be done. Our first care is the eyesight of our children.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Joint Under-Secretary of State made an inference that I found professionally distasteful. I do not think that there is any intention in the minds of my hon. Friends and of myself to contest the main basis upon which the assessment of children's eyesight is made by ophthalmologists and treatment is accorded. There is no attempt on our part to challenge that or the emphasis on it. We are trying to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, that our health services are adequate.
It is our opinion that the services are not adequate. While I do not agree with the conclusions of the Opticians' Association to the Department, nevertheless they raise a very reasonable inquiry, and there is concern among the ophthalmologists. As my hon. Friend has said, if we have to fracture a few professional toes, whether of opticians or ophthalmologists, in our anxiety to get the service bettered, it ought to be done by the Government, rather than by individual hon. Members pointing out the facts and causing inter-professional rivalries.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has invited me to consult my colleagues. Of course, I agree to do that and will do so at once. Suggestions have recently been made that the routine testing of children should be at an earlier age than 7, so that any defects are ascertained at the earliest possible time. That, and other changes which may improve the eye service provided in the schools by the regional hospital boards, are under active discussion among the Department of Health for Scotland, ophthalmologists, school medical officers and ophthalmic opticians. It would appear that we are all in this now. We

shall, of course, take the most serious note of what the two hon. Members have said to us, because we want the service to be adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(REPLACEMENT OF TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.)

7.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the Secretary of State, in page 10, line 36, at the end to insert :
(2) Nothing in the provisions of this section shall affect any Superannuation Scheme for Teachers, a draft of which has been published before the coming into operation of this Act.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: We do not desire to move the Amendment. We do not now think it necessary.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(CITATION, EXTENT, COMMENCEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION.)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 6 to 10.
There is reference to this matter at the top of page 1 of the Bill. The subsection was inserted by another place to avoid questions of Privilege. Consequently it now has to be deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 2 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

For Section two of the principal Act (which relates to the provision of free education) there shall be substituted the following section :—
Primary, secondary and compulsory further education provided in public schools and junior colleges under the management of an education authority shall be without the payment of fees".—[Mr. G. M. Thomson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause seeks to amend an important point of principle in the 1946 Act. I think we are justified in placing such, an Amendment on the Order Paper for a Bill like this. The history of Scottish educational legislation during the last 15 or 20 years has been very unsatisfactory. The great educational landmark in the United Kingdom was the Education Act, 1944, which applied only to England. When the Scottish version came along in 1945, it was interrupted by a General Election. In order to prevent the Scottish version from being held up or lost, it was passed through its final stages very hastily by general agreement, and in 1946 it was incorporated in the 1946 Act. Being a consolidation Measure, the 1946 Act was passed very quickly without any discussion of issues of principle relating to Scottish education.
Consequently, the situation is that many important points about education in Scotland have not received any thorough legislative treatment for very many years. That is one of the reasons why we felt very dissatisfied with the amount of time given to the Bill. We felt dissatisfied that it should be treated as a miscellaneous Measure rather than a Measure providing an opportunity for consideration of important points relating to Scottish education. It is because of this that we have tabled a number of new Clauses which raise important matters of principle.
Earlier today, I was speaking to an English colleague, and she expressed astonishment that we should have tabled a new Clause seeking to abolish fees in Scottish local authority schools. She said she had always understood that Scotland had a great and progressive educational tradition and that England's general practice was to follow ten or twenty years behind Scotland. She had assumed that Scotland, with its great traditions of giving every lad and lass a full opportunity for education according to ability, had provided free education for a long time. She was surprised to find that in this sense England was about eleven years ahead of Scotland. Under the 1944 Act, fees in respect of maintained grammar schools were completely abolished, but we have allowed that very anomalous and anachronistic habit to continue in Scotland. It is for that reason that we have tabled the new Clause.
It is impossible for us to claim that we have full equality of opportunity for Scottish children so long as local authorities are allowed, within their school system, to charge fees to parents so that they may buy a certain kind of education for their children. We in Scotland are proud of our national traditions. I think we can legitimately claim that one of our traditions is that we are, in general, a more democratic community, historically, than England. We do not have the great educational problem that England has, that of the great "private public schools", if I may so describe them, but we have in Scotland the equally serious problem of the fee-paying element within the State school system. The English habit produces massive problems of privilege and selection for jobs, but the Scottish perpetuation of fee paying within the State school system creates its own very important problems. It perpetuates the most pettifogging of snobbery. It is the kind of thing that prevents a fully democratic community growing up locally. It is for those reasons that we are pressing for the establishment once and for all of the principle of completely free State education in Scotland.
The fact that in the case of a number of Scottish local authorities it is still possible for parents to pay fees to decide the kind of school to which their children shall go leads to snobbery and misapprehension. Parents confidently claim that they are sacrificing in order to buy their children an education. That is not remotely true. The element of fees in respect of local authority schools is, generally, a very small part of the total cost of a child's education. The parent is not really buying an education for his child ; he is merely paying a small premium in order to be allowed to segregate his child with the children of parents of roughly the same income group. We have a strong objection to this in principle.
Existing legislation leaves the abolition of fees to the discretion of local authorities. The Secretary of State is always arguing that this is properly a matter for the discretion of local authorities. I am well aware that members of a Conservative Government feel instinctively on the side of paying for education, just as hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel instinctively against it.
The Secretary of State has justified his claims that he stands for discretion on the part of local authorities. My own local authority in Dundee recently decided that it wished to abolish fee paying in the city's primary schools, having already abolished them in the secondary schools. This became the subject of very great local controversy, and there was considerable pressure from Dundee upon the Secretary of State. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State upheld the decision of the Dundee Corporation to abolish fees in primary schools on the ground that it was properly a matter for local discretion.
I fully accept the sincerity of the argument put forward by the Government, but I want to say, equally sincerely, that it seems to me that this is the kind of important point of principle in the field of education which ought not to be left to the discretion of local authorities. It is just as logical to say that local authorities have a right to decide the school-leaving age of their pupils as it is to say that local authorities should have the right to decide whether in their schools, paid for predominantly out of public funds children should or should not pay fees. These are issues of overriding educational principle which ought to be treated as national decisions.
There is the further point that if one agrees that the payment of fees is an obstacle to full equality of educational opportunity that is a political decision which it is easier to take at the national political level than at the local political level. Inevitably when a local authority tries to exercise the discretion granted under the present legislation it finds itself the centre of very acute local controversy. This is the kind of decision which it is easier for the Government to take, and I think that it is altogether more proper for it to be taken at Governmental level.
I hope, not very optimistically, I must confess, that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this new Clause. It is a very suitable new Clause for this kind of Bill. We may be having to rush this Bill through at the tail end of a Session, but we have made good progress tonight and there is no reason why the Government should not feel able to accept this and other new Clauses on the Motion Paper. We could easily do so in the time available to us. I ask the

Government to reconsider this issue of the whole principle of fee paying in local authority schools and to give sympathetic consideration to the new Clause.

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Motion.
I have always felt that the biggest single thing that could be done to make equality of opportunity a reality would be to abolish fee paying in all schools and not only those mentioned in the new Clause.
It has always struck me as being quite wrong that in Edinburgh, for instance, children should be segregated into separate streams at an early period in their life. It is quite wrong that because parents of certain children happen to be able to afford to pay fees they should be able to send their children to those schools, knowing that having once been to those schools they will never go down the mines, be on the railway footplate and in the engineering sheds, or serve behind a shop counter. These children know that because their parents are in possession of the means to send them to certain schools they will never perform any of those jobs but will be channelled into other activities, white collared professional activities of one kind or another.
Whether we like it or not, we are creating class distinction when we do this. To take children at the age of five and segregate them into separate streams, one of which will occupy one position in life and another will occupy a lower position in life, separates children and creates a" class outlook ". I know that that is a phrase which is not very popular. People say that we must not talk about classes ; but we must face up to the reality that we are creating classes through our educational system at the present time, and that is why I have always felt very strongly that fee paying should be abolished. Not only have I seen this going on and been very seriously concerned, but I have never been able to understand the arguments concerning it.
Sometimes people say, "Why should not certain students have a slightly better education if their parents are able to pay for it?" I do not think that is a good argument. I do not think there should be better and worse education, if I may use that phrase. There should not be separate kinds of education, one better than another, particularly if it is being paid for from public funds. Other people say, "Oh, but it is not really that one


kind of education is better than another but that some people like to pay for their children being educated." Why do parents pay for their children to be educated? They do so believing that the child is getting a better opportunity in life because they happen to be in a position to afford to send it to a fee-paying school.
7.45 p.m.
If that is true, I think that it is wrong where the education is mainly being paid for from public funds. If it is not true, then thousands of parents in this country, through their own finer instincts to promote the wellbeing of their children, about which no one can complain, are being defrauded, if the education in the non-fee-paying schools is as good as the education which can be obtained outside. That also seems to me to be wrong.
Therefore, for these reasons I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this Clause very kindly. I have not much hope that he will do so, but I would ask him to consider it. It is an important matter which can make a fundamental change in our social structure and in the attitude of one set of persons to another and one set of children to another set of children. It is quite wrong for us to try to create separate classes of children. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), I believe that this is something which ought to be done by the Government for the whole of Scotland and not left to the local authority. I think that is quite wrong. It leaves a different condition in different localities and creates intense controversy about things which would better be decided by the Government.
I do not want to cover all the arguments made by my hon. Friend, but I agree with him wholeheartedly about that and I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, to give us some really good reason why he should not accept this new Clause. They will have to be very good reasons because the whole of our feeling today is towards greater equality of opportunity and greater democracy, which we talk about as one of the things which we have to teach the rest of the world. Let us first make it a reality in our own country. This is one of the most important ways of doing that, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will consider this new Clause very carefully.

Mr. Hannan: I should like to add my support for the new Clause which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I also support the point which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) when he said that what is happening here is that the public purse is being used by people who pay fees in order to send their children to schools from which they believe quite sincerely they will receive something better than is provided at the local authority schools.
It is precisely those same people who protest about subsidies in other ways. They protest about subsidies for bread, milk and health. But, in the field of education, they never bat an eyelid when some financial help is afforded them, because otherwise many of them could not afford to keep their children at those schools if they were asked to pay the full economic cost of maintaining them there.
This is an attitude which we all, even on these benches—and I say even on these benches—can understand. What is most difficult to comprehend is the individual who, while objecting on the one hand to subsidies in one direction, is nevertheless willing to take them in another. I believe that this has helped to pander to an instinct which is undesirable in these days of progress towards democratic feeling and attainment. I believe that fee-paying schools provide comprehensive education and, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, we, at least, believe comprehensive education to be a very desirable thing. Generally speaking, it does not take place in the ordinary local authority school, but most of the fee-paying schools provide comprehensive education.
The result of the present system is to create a spirit of superiority amongst some people who ought to realise that in fact they are not paying the full economic cost of maintaining their children at those schools.
It is for the two or three reasons which I have adduced that I support the new Clause and hope that the Government will at least advance some good arguments to meet the case which has been put to them. There are aspects of this matter which are related to other Clauses on the Order Paper, which it would be out of


order for me to mention at the moment. We should like to know what is the Government's attitude to this matter so that we may be able to make up our minds on our attitude towards the other new Clauses.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If the progress of the Bill can be defined into two phases, we are now entering the phase of opportunity as distinct from the phase of administrative tidying up and legal niceties with which we have dealt up to the present.
I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary of State can complain that the Opposition have been unduly harrying in their attitude to the Bill. In this stage of moving new Clauses there are, however, a number of major items which could make this a worthwhile Bill. I am not denying that the other aspects of the Bill are important and useful, but, as I said on Second Reading, we want not just a useful little Bill but a Bill which represents a milestone in Scottish education history.
There are numerous new Clauses, and the acceptance of any one of them would be a magnificent step forward. This particular new Clause is, to my mind, probably the greatest of all, and I believe that it represents one of the challenges which the Conservative Party has to face in the country. What is the justification for retaining fee paying in Scottish schools? Does it give some advantage to Scottish education over English education? Not at all. On the contrary, many English educationists laugh when they hear the claims which are made on behalf of Scottish education—claims that we are so far ahead in so many fields. I do not believe that to be the case at all.
This point was made by Dr. Highet in a speech at the weekend—that Scotland suffers from a series of myths and legends about education and that she is so fond of uttering national shibboleths about education that she has become mesmerised into believing that Scottish education is better than English education. If we, as Scotsmen, on both sides of the Committee, will turn for a moment, leave the complacency which Scottish education seems to create in many of us and examine the charges about Scottish education made by people south of the Border, what is the first thing we come up against? It is

this allegation that we still maintain fee paying in schools which are maintained by the public purse.

Mrs. Jean Mann: The so-called public schools of England are fee-paying schools.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There seems to be a matter of doubt. I will make my observations, and no doubt my hon. Friend will rise in a few moments and enlighten us on that aspect of my understanding.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope not. We are not concerned with England at the moment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I can invite my hon. Friend to do so, but she may not be allowed to do so.
I was trying to say that this was one aspect at least at which we should look. In my own constituency, a school—a fee-paying school—is being replanned. It has a long and distinguished record in education in Renfrewshire. A controversy is now taking place in the local newspapers, with the arguments going one way and the other, as to why we should have fee paying in this new academy when it is constructed. People are taking sides and arguing whether they think it is wise that the children of Greenock should be put into two classes—those who go to a public school normally and those who go to this public school and pay fees. I should like to hear the argument.
We understand that the Conservatives have entered a new phase of opportunity. They say that they are the opportunity party, and they are claiming that they represent equality of opportunity in many fields. I am glad that we have converted them to that path, and I should like the Minister to tell us why this is not the appropriate moment to introduce this new Clause. Alternatively, if he cannot do that, he should at least tell us when the Government intend to introduce a provision of this kind. Or will the Minister tell us that neither this Government nor any Conservative Government, have any intention whatever of abolishing fee paying in Scottish schools?
In my view it is wrong that this system should be carried on at the present time. Bearing in mind the whole emphasis in


scientific education and in the new technological revolution which is taking place in the educational system of the country, it is wrong that we should have this outmoded approach to the administration in our schools. The Joint Under-Secretary of State tonight issued a very firm, and I think very admirable, pronouncement against the professions in their payment of apprentices. Surely this is just the time when a clarion call like that could be reinforced by adopting such a Clause as this, which would in itself be a minor revolution within the educational system in Scotland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The debate on the Clause has been constructive and informed. I wish to add a few words in favour of the Clause. I hope the Government will accept it, because in my opinion it is right economically, socially and politically, and it accords with the march of history. It is a step towards that classless society which is one of the foundations of real democracy. It is wrong that the nation's children should be divided at an early age, or indeed at any age, into two diverging streams so that they build up into two different sets of citizens, some with a superiority complex and some with an inferiority complex, some who are destined for high rank in our society and some who are destined to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water.
I submit that this conception is bad for the nation and for the individuals who compose the nation. This new Clause is a step away from that and away from the old feudal ideas of dividing the nation into master and man, into knight and vassal. Happily, we have moved some distance from that conception of the Dark Ages, but we still have the vestiges of it in the fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools. To me it is a matter of great surprise that this conflict, this difference between different sets of people in our community, has not long been abolished. On the face of it, in this modern age, with our modern philosophy, our idea of treating humanity as one and breaking down the cultural and political barriers between nations and between human beings, it is strange that this contrast between the fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools has not been abolished long ago.
8.0 p.m.
To reject this new Clause would be to take a step backwards towards the Dark Ages. I am not putting it too high, I am not putting it in an extreme way, when I say that this would be a step backwards, a step in the wrong direction. To abolish fee-paying schools is a step which accords, as I said earlier, with history, and is a step in the right direction.
I hope that the enlightened Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate, or whoever answers this debate, will look back into his reading of history, both legal and otherwise, and realise the march of progress, realise the march away from those divergencies which are represented on the one hand by the fee-paying schools and on the other by the non-fee-paying schools. I hope that whoever replies for the Government to this debate will say, "This is a very good new Clause, and we are glad that the Opposition have been so enlightened as to move it, and we accept it."

Mrs. Mann: I rise to oppose this new Clause because it just does not do what its authors are claiming it does. It just does not abolish fee paying in schools. It singles out certain schools for the abolition of fees. It singles out those under local authorities.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend is saying that I misled the Committee. I was most careful to explain that this new Clause dealt, as it can only deal, with local authority schools. Because of the Bill it can deal with local authority schools only.

Mrs. Mann: Perhaps I should make myself clear. I thought I had done so. I oppose the new Clause because it does not do what some of the speakers have been claiming for it, namely, abolish class distinction in education.
This new Clause singles out certain schools and leaves the hard core still untouched. It fails to distinguish, for example, between rate-aided and State-aided schools. We are going to find that all the State-aided schools are still exempt. It raises anomalies in Glasgow, for example, whereby St. Aloysius, which is State-aided but may or may not be rate-aided, is completely exempt, while


Glasgow High School will have abolition of fees directed to it.
I think that the abolition of fees is a very good thing, and I agree with the policy statement of the Labour Party "Towards Equality," the statement in which we lay down that the hard core of inequality lies in our educational system. However, this hastily conceived new Clause is an attempt to dragoon the party into a declaration of policy tonight, although the party in Scotland has stated time and again to Scotland that its policy will not be declared until it is declared for the entire educational system in both England and Scotland. I think it is an attempt to dragoon the party beforehand, and to direct it into the wrong channel, because it still leaves the so-called public schools, which, we know, are private schools, in both Scotland and England, apart, and it dictates to local authority representatives what they ought to do.
I have mentioned the anomaly between Glasgow High and St. Aloysius. Have the authors of this new Clause considered Heriot's of Edinburgh, the Royal High, Burghmuir, Gillespie's, Leith Academy, Trinity Academy and Holy Cross? Do they know which of those are State-aided and which are rate-aided?
I have heard the utmost nonsense tonight about how the children of well-to-do parents can slip into Glasgow High School just because their parents are wealthy, in spite of advertisements which have appeared time and again in the Glasgow Herald showing the examination to which a child must submit before getting into the school. Those dishonest statements continue to confuse working-class people who think that there is some privilege, that some escape of obligation can take one into some schools of that sort. I have known of three examinations to get into that school. I, therefore, think it wrong that so many people should have been, because of the process of elimination, misled by others with the statement that one can slip in if one's parents happen to have money. It is absolutely untrue, and I think it is untrue of most of the education authority schools. I believe that the education authority members look after their schools exceedingly well and would not allow such a state of affairs to continue.
We are not by this new Clause moving towards equality. We shall move towards equality only when we deal with all schools wherein privileges exist, and not merely single out one or two which, by reason of their territory, particularly in Glasgow, have remained as they are. I was a member of Glasgow Corporation when we freed most of the secondary schools in Glasgow—fourteen of them—from fee paying. There was a particular reason for keeping the remaining five as they were.
I think we must wait until such time as the Labour Party as a whole decides its policy and moves towards equality—not in this way, but by tackling the whole of education in England and in Scotland, not in only the one country or the other.
In a debate in the B.B.C.'s programme, "Matter of Opinion," about eighteen months ago, a member of the Executive of the Labour Party was misrepresented. Participants in the debate were allowed to say that she had made a statement to the effect that all schools would be placed on an equal basis and that the Labour Party would oppose all fee paying. She wrote to Sir Ian Jacob to take exception to that misrepresentation of her statement. She had been correctly reported in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, and it seems inconceivable that the B.B.C. should allow her to be misrepresented as saying that the Labour Party policy was to abolish all fee paying. She had said nothing of the kind. She got an apology from Sir Ian Jacob.
Until we get a decision as to which schools shall be deprived of fees and which shall be allowed to charge fees, do not let us talk about doing away with these inequalities in education. We shall have a worse class system than ever if we deal with this problem in a niggling way brought in through the back door by means of a little Bill when no one else is looking. It would be wrong to use this means tonight and to vote on it. I do not intend to let my opinion be expressed in the Lobby until we have some clarity on this side of the House and from my party as a whole on our entire attitude towards public and private schools throughout Britain.

Mr. Ross: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who is a very close friend of mine, will think again on this subject.


If she will only recollect what was done by Glasgow she may find some reason for supporting us in moving the New Clause. If I understand her argument, it is "Do not do it now. Wait until you can do the whole lot at once." Yet my hon. Friend tells us with a certain justifiable pride that Glasgow did not deal with the whole question but with about 11 schools out of 15.
My hon. Friend asked for clarity. I do not think that anything could be clearer than the proposed new Clause. We suggest the abolition of fee paying in primary, secondary and compulsory education provided in public schools and junior colleges under the management of an education authority, that is to say where the money for the maintenance and support of the school and the payment for the teachers is provided by the education authority, part of which is reimbursed by the State so that the school is both State-aided and rate-aided. We suggest that in that case there shall be no fee paying.
I have heard all sorts of arguments about this kind of thing, and I have had experience of both cases because I have lived through a time when there was fee paying at Ayr Academy. When I was a boy there was fee paying at the primary department of that school and pupils came to that department from miles around. They came not because the education there was better than at any other school—the teachers there were appointed by the education authority and paid by the authority—but because payment of a fee gave two seeming advantages to the parents.
Let us face it. The first advantage was a class advantage, the fact that the children were mixing with other children whose parents could also afford to pay that fee. The children were therefore all kept nicely together. It was the first school in Ayr where the pupils wore a uniform, as I can remember. The children were not only segregated by finance but by uniform from the rest of the town. That was the first and prized advantage.
Scottish people are interested in education. We hear a great deal of talk about the comprehensive school. We have had comprehensive schools in Scotland for generations, and the second advantage which these parents secured by payment

of fees in the primary school—and they are still getting it in certain parts of Scotland today—was that the child entered at the age of five and left at the age of 17 to go to a university. It was a comprehensive education bought with the ability to pay fees from the age of five. At the age of 11 these children were joined by other children from other parts of Ayr and other outlying areas, but even then in the secondary department there was segregation of the people who were known and had belonged and had been fee paying from people like myself who had come in after having won a bursary.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Clever boy.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: No, not so very clever. At the end of the day, all the children were receiving the same education in that comprehensive school, but a child who started fee paying at the age of five did not have to sit any examination to get to the secondary department. I know that in 1946 or 1947 fee paying was wiped out and now the children who go into the primary department of Ayr Academy are those who live in the neighbourhood of the school. It means that the sons and daughters of Regular soldiers, good enough to fight the battles of the old Empire—

Mrs. Mann: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene? I know that he does not want to misrepresent the situation, but I think he will admit that in all the schools in Edinburgh which I quoted, and in Glasgow High, these conditions about not having to sit 11-plus examination do not apply.

Mr. Ross: I will come to that in a moment. When the change was made, children from round about the area were zoned into that school, just as my children are zoned at the moment into Alloway public school, the school nearest to the door. If that is a good enough slogan for the Co-operative, it might be good enough for education too.
The point about the entrance examination is this. These people, of course, have to sit a qualifying examination for a 11-plus test, but if they happen to be already in a comprehensive school it does not mean that they go out of that school. It means that they go into a particular stream in that school, where other streams are flowing, and if any mistake has been


made at the age of 12 or 13 they can be switched over to another stream in the school. That is an advantage.
The only thing maintained by the present situation in respect of these schools—which are completely under the control of and financed entirely by the State and the ratepayers—is that initial advantage that children buy their way into a type of education. It may well be that that snag still remains and will remain until we have full comprehensive education for everyone, but the fact that we cannot do everything at once does not mean that we should not take a step in that direction. If we had not acted in this way in the past we should not have raised the school leaving age to 15. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie would like to raise the age to 16.

Mrs. Mann: To 21.

Mr. Ross: I suggest seriously that from the point of view of the organisation of education the method suggested in the new Clause is the only fair way of doing what we propose. We in Scotland have prided ourselves that our education is free from the blemishes of the public school education in England. Comparatively speaking, we feel that the historical aspect and part of the independence and the freer relationship and lack of feudalism in Scotland sprung from the fact that everyone went to the school in the village or town, be it the laird's son or the son of the farmer. It was when we started to break away from this practice, and when certain sections started to send their children out of Scotland, that class distinction started there.
I cannot see anything other than a disadvantage continuing. Do not let us exaggerate it. We in Scotland have nothing like the amount of fee paying there is in England ; but where it exists it is a blemish, where it exists it is resented. In this age we should not allow people to buy an educational advantage of that kind, especially one that leads to a certain amount of social snobbery, which is a reflection not so much on the children but on the parents and is soon bred into the children. Where we can do something about it, and we are taking a step in the right direction here, we should take that step fearlessly.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is apparent that in this matter the Opposition are not all of one mind and that we have had a peep into the backroom of high Labour policy which has been fascinating to some of us. Apart from the arguments we have heard, for and against, there are some practical reasons why this suggested Clause cannot be accepted, as the Opposition know well. I am sure that they would not apply it if they were in my position tonight, and I will try to explain why.
This new Clause would leave the Act more or less as it is but would exclude the present vital proviso which reads as follows :
Provided that if the authority think it expedient they may charge fees in some or all of the classes in a limited number of primary and secondary schools, so, however "—
This is the essence of it—
that the power to do so may be exercised only where it can be exercised without prejudice to the adequate provision of free primary and secondary education in public schools in which no fees are charged, or in other schools the managers of which agree, in respect of such payment by the education authority as may be agreed, to admit and educate pupils free of charge on the nomination of the education authority.
That proviso was inserted after much reflection by very distinguished Members of the Labour Party in 1945. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) could not understand the argument. I invite him to read the arguments used by his own leaders in 1945. They are all in the interesting Second Reading debate in the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT which I am holding.

Mr. Willis: I have heard the arguments but cannot understand why they seem to carry much weight, because they do not carry much weight with me.

Mr. Stewart: Well they are all here in this volume. May I repeat them quickly so that we do not lose too much time? It is true that a change was made in England so that there was to be no more fee paying in public authority schools in England under the Act of 1944. It was thought that since that was done in England it should also be done in Scotland. However, it was decided to continue to allow Scottish education authorities the discretion to charge fees which had been allowed by the Act of


1918 so long as it did not prejudice the adequate provision of free education.
What are the reasons why we cannot accept this proposal? The first is that to which I referred earlier. The issue is clear enough. Either we trust our Scottish local authorities or we do not. If it is the view of the Opposition that they do not trust them, let us hear it. We trust them. Parliament has given them wide discretion throughout the years. I trust them in the exercise of that discretion, and I see no reason for interfering with that trust now. It is in accordance with democratic principles and, therefore, it should be maintained.
I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) had in mind the fact that the authorities have exercised sparingly their authority in the way of fees or no fees. As the proviso requires,
without prejudice to the adequate provision of free … education",
some authorities have elected to retain their fee-paying schools while others have decided to abolish them. Over the country generally the number of education authority schools in which fees are being charged has fallen from fifty-four in 1945 to thirty-five today. The latter figure includes three schools in which fee-paying departments are working out, as they are in Dundee, and will eventually disappear.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for giving us the credit of putting into practice our faith in the local authorities. Dundee local authority came to me and said that it wanted to abolish fees. There was great agitation. I consulted my right hon. Friend and I took the view that we had no grounds upon which to interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the authority. That is our policy, and I hope it will always be so. That is one reason.

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister has given us a satisfactory picture of what has been happening generally. Is he aware that there are suggestions that in Edinburgh reverse processes are likely to take place, and that there will probably be great pressure on Edinburgh? Is the Minister prepared to allow the local education authority, in its discretion, to expand fee-paying schools if that pressure arises? It would seem to me that it would breach

the principle of the Bill by encroaching on the provision that should be made for non-fee-paying pupils.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman knows the operations of the Edinburgh education authority better than I do, for personal reasons which I respect. I do not know of the matter to which he has referred, but I do not see why I should alter my attitude if I believe that the local authorities have a discretion and are entitled to use it. I cannot go further than that, and I am inclined always to back the authority.
Secondly, one hon. Member asked why, as England has it, should not Scotland have it? The situation in England was, and is, very different from that in Scotland. In 1944 pupils of ability in England were denied a grammar school education because the places which they might have occupied were already taken. The trouble is that there are not enough places in the English grammar schools. There are not enough places today.
That is not so with us. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree with me that there are very few of what the English call grammar school type schools where there are not places for capable children. Therefore, our problem has never been the same as that in England.
I come to the biggest and most powerful reason which I think the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) had in her mind, apart from the ethics of all this. To introduce this considerable change in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh would bring about very difficult administrative problems. It was the same situation which existed in 1945 and to which Mr. Tom Johnston referred. It was exactly the administrative problem which would be the result of a change like this in 1945. Mr. Johnston explained the trouble that would arise in Glasgow. He said :
… all I am concerned about this afternoon is to explain why, on educational grounds …
Those are the grounds I stand on here—
… it has been considered inadvisable in this Bill to give a central prohibitory direction to local authorities. They will continue, as now, to exercise an option on these matters.
8.30 p.m.
Later, in the same debate, Mr. West-wood was saying the same thing in the same kind of words, and nobody could


say that he was not a stalwart Scot, a stalwart democrat and Socialist. He said that the third point upon which reservation was made was the abolition of fees. At that time he was the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Ede: He was not a Scot.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that to him when he was alive.

Mr. Ede: I did.

Mr. Stewart: He said :
… I believe in absolutely free education, but what we are doing under our proposals is to leave it in the hands of the education authorities. There is no change in the law …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1945; Vol. 410, cols. 1272 and 1359.]
Taking all these matters into account and recognising the practical difficulties that would arise when introducing a Measure of this kind at this time, when there is this flood of pupils in our schools and this shortage of teachers, it would be madness to do what is suggested. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the new Clause.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary obviously has no intention of accepting the new Clause. He concluded by quoting the debate on the 1945 Act. Throughout the whole of our proceedings the Joint Under-Secretary, when it suits him, almost treats the 1945 Act as his bible; but if the 1945 Act were all that good, I do not know why we have been wasting all day on this Measure which is amending the 1945 Act or the consolidating 1946 Act.
It is simply not good enough for the Minister to call in aid the 1945 debates each time and never to give us any adequate reason for rejecting our proposals. He quoted Tom Johnston and Joseph Westwood, but all we were given were sentences from each of the speeches saying that, on educational grounds, it would not be good for the central Department to take this decision.

Mr. Willis: That was in 1945.

Miss Herbison: Exactly. Even if it were not right in 1945, the Minister has an onus on him to tell us today what those educational grounds and those practical difficulties are. He has not referred to one educational ground for

rejecting this proposal, nor has he given us one practical reason.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was worried in case, in her own words, Scotland was "left on one particular shelf, and England on another." By this modest new Clause we are going a step further towards equality. The new Clause does not go as far as some of us would like, but we made it modest in the hope that we might persuade the Government to accept it. If we look at Section 61 of the 1944 Act which applies to England and Wales, we find that in subsection (1) it states :
No fees shall be charged in respect of admission to any school maintained by a local education authority, or to any county college, or in respect of the education provided in such school or college.
I hope that I have allayed one fear expressed by my hon. Friend. All we are asking in this Amendment is to bring Scotland into line with England.

Mr. Willis: On the same shelf.

Miss Herbison: Yes, on the same shelf, if we wish to use that figure of speech.
The Minister tried to say that there were special reasons for England doing it. Since 1944 England has been increasing the places in grammar and secondary schools of all kinds. There is not so much difference today, and we feel that we have a right today to ask that this should be done. I am sure that if the Joint Under-Secretary would have a talk with the convener of the education committee of Glasgow Corporation, he would find exactly what the Labour group on the Glasgow Corporation think about this matter. I ask that he should go and have a talk with them and find out their point of view about those schools under their control.
My hon. Friends who have supported this new Clause have put forward valid reasons on educational grounds, and also on social grounds, why all schools under the control of education authorities should be non-fee-paying. But I want to return to the reason given why England differs from Scotland. In 1944 there may have been some reason so far as grammar school places were concerned. But what about the primary schools? We in Scotland are still in what I would call a disgraceful condition in that in some


instances there are fees for primary schools. I do not think that that could be supported by anybody.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was dealing with an argument, which I had not heard from any of my hon. Friends, that people, it is said, slip in by the back door of these fee-paying schools in Glasgow. She told us that in one school the children sometimes had as many as three examinations before they were allowed in.

Mr. Hannan: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie did not take part in this argument? She only came in when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon) sat down.

Miss Herbison: I wish to answer the argument. As a teacher, I think it a dreadful thing that children of 16 years of age, because their parents want them to go into fee-paying schools in Glasgow, are asked to undergo three eliminating examinations. As legislators I think that we should try to protect the children.

Mrs. Mann: I think that my hon. Friend is out of touch now with conditions in Glasgow. Much water has flowed under the bridge since she herself left a non-fee-paying school to go to teach in a fee-paying school. But the position today is such that in the housing scheme in Glasgow, in order to avoid outbreaks of dysentery which occur in some districts and to avoid the infection which arises in these schools and because of the terrible housing conditions in Glasgow, we actually have the spectacle of subsidised housing scheme tenants sending their children to private schools.

Miss Herbison: I do not see what that interjection has to do with the point with which I was dealing. I was dealing only with the point put forward by the hon. Member, that in one fee-paying school in Glasgow children are asked to undergo three examinations—

Mrs. Mann: rose—

Miss Herbison: I am sorry ; I cannot give way again. I am dealing only with one point and I am saying that I, as a person interested in education, would be completely opposed to that, and would want to protect these children. My hon.

Friend has said that since I left the fee-paying school in which I taught much water may have gone under the bridge. The fee-paying school in which I taught was under the control of Glasgow education authority and, as a teacher employed by that authority, I went where it asked me to go. It may be that things are now different in that school, but when I was there—and I was there until 1945—boys certainly got in by the back door. That was known all over Glasgow.
The arguments which have been put forward today show quite clearly that the time has now come when the Government ought to tell our local education authorities that there shall be no more fee paying in schools, either primary or secondary, which come under the control of those education authorities. I live in Lanarkshire, which is the biggest county in Scotland, and whose education authority caters for the second largest number of children. We have no fee-paying schools in Lanarkshire, yet I would say that our children are as well educated as one will find anywhere in Scotland.
I urge the Joint Under-Secretary to take into account all the arguments which have been put forward and not hide himself behind an Act that he and his Government have found, in certain instances, required to be changed, and for those reasons have brought forward this Bill.

Mr. Ede: I rise only because the Joint Under-Secretary alluded to me in the course of his attempt to defend his position by quoting what he said were the reasons why the English system differed from the Scottish. During the passing of the 1944 Act, I was in a position similar to that now occupied by the hon. Gentleman. If he will examine Section 61 (1), which was read by my hon. Friend, he will see that that was a decision taken upon a question of principle, for it included not merely primary and secondary schools but also county colleges. The whole of the English system, where it was supported by rates was, from that time onwards, to be free.
I cannot believe that the Scottish system of education, for which I have no great respect, is so bad that the number of Scottish children suitable for what we call a grammar school education in


England is less than the number of English children. This is a conflict of principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann); I want to see all fees abolished throughout the English education service—and I speak not merely as a representative governor of county schools but as a governor of two public schools and a direct grant school. I am quite sure that the country would be better served if the admission to those schools were by educational merit alone and not by educational merit qualified by the financial resources of the parents.
8.45 p.m.
I go back to the time when I first attended a school in England, in 1886, which was before most hon. Members here were even born. Fees were then charged. In fact, when I moved up to the boys' school from the infants' school, there was a system of fees which were graded on a class basis. My father, being a tradesman,

was expected to pay 9d. a week for me whereas some children got in for 2d. But when my father discovered that I was being taught by a boy only six years my senior, the son of another tradesman in Epsom, he said, "Ninepence for him! Not on your life." He paid nothing more for a year and then paid 6d. a week back money.

We in England abolished that system in 1891, and it is a sad thought for one who in his early days was brought up to believe that educational ideals in Scotland, inaugurated by John Knox, were so much better than those in England inaugurated by successive Archbishops of Canterbury to find, sixty-five years later, that Scotland has not yet caught up with England.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—

The Committee divided : Ayes 93, Noes 153.

Division No. 293.]
AYES
[8.46 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Probert, A. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Willey, Frederick


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Orbach, M.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, W.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.



Herbison, Miss M.
Pentland, N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bidgood, J. C.
Campbell, Sir David


Arbuthnot, John
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cole, Norman


Atkins, H. E.
Bishop, F. P.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Balniel, Lord
Black, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Barlow, Sir John
Boothby, Sir Robert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crouch, R. F.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cunningham, Knox


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bryan, P.
Currie, G. B. H.




Dance, J. C. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, J, E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Ridsdale, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kershaw, J. A.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kirk, P. M.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Simon, J. E, S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Freeth, D. K.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, A. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Teeling, W.


Green, A.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Marshall, Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wall, Major Patrick


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nairn, D. L. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hope, Lord John
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Paton, John
Wood, Hon. R.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Woollam, John Victor


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Hughes-Young.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 30 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

After subsection (1) of section thirty of the principal Act (which provides that education authorities shall provide schemes for promoting pupils from primary to secondary schools) there shall be inserted the words—
Provided that no scheme shall be approved which segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups."—[Mr. Hannan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Under Section 30 of the principal Act, a local authority has the duty to prepare a scheme for promoting pupils from primary to secondary schools. That is all the duty that is laid upon the local authorities without any qualification. They also have to show the method they propose to adopt in so doing, so that they can form an opinion about which process is likely to benefit the pupils.
The method at present employed throughout Scotland is known as the "11-plus" method. In addition there are calibration tests, known as "intelligence-quotient examinations," according

to the results of which children are allocated either to junior schools or to senior secondary schools. The proportion of the child population so allocated is about 70 per cent. to junior schools and 30 per cent. to senior secondary schools.
It is profoundly wrong that, after six years of comprehensive education in primary schools, children should be separated at the still tender age of 11-plus. This is now one of the most controversial topics in the world of education. That segregation is offensive to Scottish education susceptibilities which always, until the turn of the century favoured education which was comprehensive or omnibus, in character. The separation process seems to have grown up and was not planned. It is certainly not provided for in Section 30. The exact words there are that the education authority shall prepare and submit
under section sixty-five of this Act a scheme… relating to the schools under their management and showing the method to be adopted for promoting pupils from primary schools or departments to secondary schools or departments.
That is all. We have always taken exception to pupils of this age being


separated. The educational interests of the children would be much better served could they be maintained under one roof.
This division goes further. In the senior secondary schools children are still further sub-divided into secondary S.1, S.2 and S.3. They are allocated courses according to the pass marks which they have obtained. A child with an extremely good pass in English but whose arithmetic is not quite sufficient to give an S.1 mark, provides an example of how this method works. The child may have only one language course when its ability and aptitude suggests that the S.1 mark would qualify for two or more languages. Children in junior secondary schools are subdivided into the three categories J.1, J.2 and J.3. This division has been carried to an absurd degree, and the sooner the segregation of children at these ages is ended the happier educationists will be.
9.0 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary may say, as he has frequently done, that the Government are only too glad to leave the matter to the local authorities. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the hon. Gentleman adopts that pretext when it suits his taste. He was, however, prepared to take away from local authorities their duty to provide schemes for further education.
In case the hon. Gentleman is anxious to advance that argument, I would point out that subsection (2) reads :
An education authority may at any time, and shall if and when so required by the Secretary of State, prepare and submit for his approval a revised scheme or modification of an existing scheme under this section.
There the initiative can be taken by the Secretary of State if he is so minded. Because of the deteriorating situation in Scottish education, my hon. Friends are most anxious that the Secretary of State shall take action at an early date. We wish to impress upon him the urgent necessity for initiative.
Parents, teachers, educationists and, above all, children are most concerned about what is happening. It is more and more becoming recognised that the only way to eradicate the faults of the present dual system with its consequent selection and segregation is to give all children over the age of eleven the chance to con-

tinue to work and play together with equal facilities in the one school. Such schools would cater for them by means of a core of subjects common to them all, from which would stem classes in specialised subjects taken according to the desires and aptitudes of the children. In such circumstances, transfers from one course to another would be very much easier.
The Joint Under-Secretary knows all these advantages. He was a signatory to the Advisory Council Report in 1947 which said :
… we hold that school becomes colourful, rich and rewarding just in proportion as the boy who reads Homer, the boy who makes wireless sets and the boy without marked aptitude for either are within its living unity a constant stimulus and supplement one to the other.
This is true if education is to be not merely an instruction but a preparation for life itself.
The present method of selection is making administrators fall over backwards in an effort to be fair to all the children. They are running riot over this business, and the educational interests of children are being sacrificed. Because of this, many children, despite an excellent record in the primary school, make a bad show at the examination through nervous disposition, sickness or strain. Despite its previous excellent record, the child may find itself at a junior secondary school and it concludes that it is really mentally inferior to those who have gone to the senior secondary school.
This division creates friction even within families, some members of which may go to a senior secondary school and others to a junior secondary school. It helps to implant in the minds of those who go to senior secondary schools a feeling that they are superior. It may happen indeed that, not having done quite so well as their comrades in that examination, what enables them to pass is their slickness of mind in the intelligence quotient and calibration tests. We all know of the child who, although anxious to do well and be selected and justify the faith and affection which its parents have in it, fails in this examination and takes its failure extremely hard. In response to the parents encouragement to pass the examination and out of love and affection for its parents, the child may actually strain itself beyond its mental capacity.


This is something which the teaching profession and educationalists have recognised for sometime.
I can remember seeing on the television a film describing the ordinary activities of the police. One of the incidents concerned a child who had been seen to be picked up by the driver of a van. The child disappeared and suspicion rested on the driver of taking the child away with evil intent, but after inquiry it is found, when the child was brought back, that the explanation of its disappearance was quite simple. The father had been even more anxious than the child who felt that if she failed in the examination she would let her father down. She did fail and ran away. When she was brought back and explanations given, once again there was a happy family. These cases could be multiplied. It is something which is not good and healthy for the spirit of our child population.
Teachers are looking at this examination as a measure of their ability to teach. A record of successes in the examination is no doubt kept and promotion and other matters are probably judged by it. It is not the first time, I have been informed, that tears have flowed in many a staff room when the results have become known. Teachers have made certain estimations of the capability of the boys and girls in taking the senior secondary course and when they have failed the teachers have taken this as a great disappointment.
There are hon. Members on this side of the Committee who feel very strongly and sincerely about this matter. We are asking the Joint Under-Secretary to recognise that this examination is now becoming looked upon as a race and not an examination—a race in time, 30 sums in 30 minutes, 45 functional problems in some 30 or 40 minutes. Handwriting and figuration do not count. Even the ability to read is not taken into account. In this examination recent research has shown that there are considerable margins of error. When we are dealing with children this is too big a risk to take from the point of view not only of the individual child but of the educational advancement of the population as a whole and the future which Britain has to play in world affairs.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to second the Motion.
The new Clause was moved movingly and with a depth of personal experience by my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), who quoted most persuasively the Report of the Advisory Committee on this subject—a Report which is very authoritative and which ought to have its authority made even greater by the fact that one of its signatories was the present Minister responsible for Scottish education. The trouble is that we are beginning to feel in the Committee that on educational matters the Joint Under-Secretary of State's heart is always in the right place but his seat appears to be on the wrong side.
If I may add another piece of his own evidence in favour of comprehensive schooling, I will quote to him the latest educational document which he, from his great interest in education, which we all admit, has given us. I refer to the Annual Report of the Department of Education for 1955, for which I assume he is mainly responsible. In page 11 he will find some comments on how the primary schools in Scotland are getting on. He will find a report on how new and more modern group methods are being very properly encouraged in Scottish schools. But the Report then gees on to say :
It is, however, comparatively rare to find these methods used in classes PVI and PVII. This is probably due, in part at least, to the pre-occupation of the teachers with the tests of attainment which their pupils generally have to take before they are transferred to secondary education and to a mistaken idea that, as all have to take the same tests, all must profess the same work.
In a subsequent paragraph, with which I will not weary the Committee, this point is argued in some detail, and I think very persuasively. I am bound to say that the conclusion which comes to me from this reading of the Secretary of State's own Report is that this very real problem of education in the primary schools can be met only by wiping out this quite artificial method of segregation at the arbitrary age of 11 plus.
I do not know what is the policy of the Conservative Party on comprehensive schools, if it has an official policy. So far as I can understand it, hon. Members opposite are completely against comprehensive schooling and are certainly against it as a general principle, although I am bound to say that practically every hon. Member sitting opposite tonight


himself attended a comprehensive school, because the private school sector in this country is comprehensive in the sense that it is a school of all the talents even if it is not comprehensive in the sense that it is open to everybody, because unfortunately we still have a situation in which private education can be bought. If one buys a private education in an English public school system, one has a comprehensive education system, in which the boy who is brilliant at games works and plays side by side with the boy who is brilliant at lessons. That is the kind of secondary school education which we seek to bring about through the comprehensive school system.
One can only speculate what the Front Bench of the present Government would look like if, instead of enjoying the comprehensive school system which many of them enjoyed in the private sector, they had been compelled to go into the segregated State school system. Such a late starter as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) might never have become Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State who, with his disarming modesty, has spoken to us at times in this Committee of his own educational setbacks during his youth, might well have found himself in a very different position today if he had been segregated at 11 plus by a controlled examination.
When one looks at the educational statistics in Scotland, all the mental agony which my hon. Friend described with such eloquence seems utterly futile—because what happens? We go through the painful process of separating the 30 per cent. of the brighter children by these very imperfect processes from the 70 per cent. of, at that age, rather less bright children, and then, a few years later, we find that out of the 30 per cent. who were sent to a secondary school, half have left at the minimum school leaving age in any event. Half of them leave at the same age as they would have done if they had gone to junior secondary school. This troublesome process of selection, with all the anxiety to parents, and all the stress that it causes, which may have serious after effects on the children, is wasted, considering what happens in the segregated secondary school system.
9.15 p.m.
We cannot be at all sure that the tests which are applied, with the best will in the world, are at all adequate. It is not only the haphazard nature of written examinations, but the intelligence tests. A most interesting paper was read to the British Association not long ago by a member of the staff of Glasgow University, showing that the response of a pupil to an intelligence test could be related to the social class from which he came, and that there was a great deal of unconscious class basis in the pseudo-scientific intelligence tests ; and they have to be watched with great care.
It is not merely a question of class bias. They can have all sorts of other hidden difficulties. I remember a friend of mine, a Highland teacher, complaining to me rather bitterly about an intelligence test her pupils had just undergone. She said, in her Highland voice, "It was so foolish that they gave a picture of a watering can and asked the children to identify it. Who has seen a watering can in the Isle of Lewis?"
Intelligence tests are a very imperfect method indeed of entering upon this fateful task of settling a child's future, of deciding not merely where the child should spend the next few years of his school life but—when the child entering the ordinary State school is only 11—what his adult life is to be, the kind of job he will be qualified for and the kind of life which he will be able to live. It is much too fateful a decision to rely, in making it, upon the present hit-and-miss methods of selection.
I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I hope he will not say again that this is a matter which must be left to the absolute discretion of the local authorities. As I said earlier, I grant him the genuineness of the way in which he applies the argument about the local authorities, but it is an argument which can be carried only to a certain point. If we were to carry it to its logical conclusion we might as well wind up the Education Department and sack the Joint Under-Secretary of State and allow the local authorities to run their own system. If the local authorities are to have absolute discretion in deciding the general principles of the educational framework I do not see what the purpose is of


having a Joint Under-Secretary of State responsible for running Scotland's education.
There are certain general principles which it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to lay down, and I think that one so important as the question of how children are to spend their secondary school lives is one the Government should decide, not one which they should funk or try to pass on to local authorities. I hope that we shall have a much more favourable response from the Joint Under-Secretary to this new Clause than that we had to the last one which we moved.

Mrs. Mann: I am very glad to be able to support my hon. Friends this time, and I plead with them that this new Clause be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said that he had some experience of examinations. Perhaps I have had more experience than any Member of the Committee, at any rate, than any Member on these benches, because I have had a family of five to educate. Therefore, I speak with close experience of the effects of examinations. I do not think there is anything wrong in having an examination at 11 or 11 plus, but I think there is something very wrong in allowing that examination to determine the whole future of the child.
I have in my family three who have gained the M.B., Ch.B., at their universities and who have had scholarships to the Royal College of Surgeons and diplomas in laryngology, otology and in radiography, not one of whom was anything but wild and careless at the ages of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years and not one of whom at 14 years had even contemplated what his or her future was to be. All of them brought home reports until they were past the age of 14 showing that they were either second or third from the bottom of the class. When I kicked up a row and demanded an improvement I had an improvement. One had moved to fifth from the bottom in a class of thirty-three, and I do not want to mention here what degrees he holds today.
I am merely pointing out that my close experience of children has shown me the utter inhumanity of determining at 11 years of age what a child's future is to be. There are late developers. It is quite

true, as my hon. Friends have said, that in the public schools of England, which we regard as private schools, such a choice is not to be made. That is where we reach the hard core of inequality ; and that is what gives us the two nations of which Disraeli wrote.
It may be merely because we are long past the age of schooling that we do not realise the acute feelings roused in young children when they approach examinations. I do not think that any of us can realise how examinations affect them for all time, leaving them probably with inferiority complexes and perhaps robbing the nation of hundreds of very great scientists and technologists. It would be better that a millstone be put round his neck than that such damage should be done to a little child at 11 years of age. How many of us do not have regard for the wild, harum-scarum boy of 11 and like him better than the little swot? Yet we are telling these little children before they are 11 years of age that they must get down to it when they really should be playing and enjoying themselves.
I know that parents have said to a child, "There will be a wristlet watch for you if you pass the qualifying examination." I know also from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press that most of our journalists failed to pass their qualifying examination. I remember, too, that one child, when told that he would get a wristlet watch, said to his parents, "The worst of it is that most of the other boys in the class have been promised a wrist watch, too." In many parts of Scotland, even when the children pass the examination the determining factor is not their attainment but the number of available places.
This is the darkest page in Scotland's history. It belongs to a bygone age. The sooner we get rid of it the better for all of us, and for the children. The establishment of a comprehensive school is the one important step today. If it is not practicable at first, the words of the proposed new Clause must do—
Provided that no scheme shall be approved which segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups.
I hope that something will be done in the way of accepting the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: We are now discussing an intensely interesting subject,


which I admit is of the greatest importance to our Scottish schools. I have no prejudices about this matter. Not long ago I had the pleasure, at the request of the Glasgow Corporation, of opening the new comprehensive school at Crookston Castle. I said then, as I say again to the Committee tonight, that there is much to be said for the comprehensive school. I have no prejudices against it. In practice, however, we have found that circumstances vary in different areas; indeed, this was mentioned in the circular sent out by the hon. Lady's Government in 1951.
In Glasgow, the view is that in all the circumstances there it is wise to aim at the comprehensive school. I said to the Corporation, "If it is your confirmed view, I approve." In Fife, which I know better than Glasgow, it has been the long confirmed view of the education authority—which is not a Tory authority—that the junior secondary school arrangement is the better suited for that area. Who am I to lay down for Fife that it is wrong? I am not in that position, nor is any hon. Member of the Committee.

Mr. Ross: But surely the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is no real conflict in purpose there, that it has been in the view of the Scottish Department that junior secondary schools should develop a third year, and should develop in those three years a course which would enable pupils, after that, to go to the secondary schools?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is saying what I would have liked to say myself. There is no conflict. Both systems have grown up in our country, both systems have their merits. I do not think it is in the tradition of Scottish education to arrive at one fixed arrangement. It is the variety of our educational process that is its great value.
I see the point that some children may find the examination trying but, with great respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), because she speaks as a mother and knows, I really think she is exaggerating. I have visited primary schools time after time in the last few years and have asked headmasters, women and men teachers this question : "Do you find acute anxiety caused by this examination?" I have been told, No. In one school in Fife I was told, "It does not

arise. We bring in the children. They do not know the examination is taking place—" [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"] No. I was told, "They arrive one morning and I put the paper in front of them. They get no notice and it goes through like an ordinary test." Many others have said to me that there is a gross amount of exaggeration about the anxiety which this examination may cause.

Mrs. Mann: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the teacher is the last one to whom the pupil goes and says, "Please, I am afraid I am not going to get through this examination." She has no idea of what the parents are saying. The teachers do not know, but we M.P.s find our "surgeries" filled constantly with heartbroken parents who bring their children because the child's future has been determined by that examination.

Mr. Hannan: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are some parents who have threatened teachers with physical violence because the teacher's estimate did not concur with the parents' estimate? It is true that the junior secondary school has a great part to play and is doing a good job. It caters for 70 per cent. of the pupils. It is not the examination which is complained about so much as the fact that the children are separated.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady has touched on an important point. I quite agree, as a parent. I know that what the child says to the parent is not always what the child says to the teacher, but we are not without knowledge of this in the Department. All this information percolates through to us as well. We get complaints from parents that the decision about their child is not what they would have wished, but we get very few of them. I speak from memory, but I think that in the last year there were fewer than one dozen.
In each instance we send our chief inspector to examine the child's record from the start, the teacher's estimate of the child, the little tests that it has done, and so on. When there is doubt we recommend that the child should be given the opportunity to take the senior secondary course. The fact that in Scotland we have room in our so-called senior secondary schools, enables us generally


to give the benefit of the doubt. If there is anything wrong with our senior schools it is that too many people get in. That is why there is such a wastage at the top, as hon. Members will understand.
I should like hon. Members to realise that, even if we had only comprehensive schools we should still have to have a test, because in those schools they have to decide into which stream to put the child. A test, an examination, an inquiry and a division has to take place. I fully recognise that it is easier, if a mistake is made, to demote a child from class A to class B within the same school than it is to take the child from one school and place it in another. I recognise that, but I hope that hon. Members opposite, because of their passion for the comprehensive school, will not do anything to denigrate the supreme importance of the junior secondary school.
The problem here is far more important than that of merely deciding what is to be the test and what kind of school a child should go to. The problem is so to improve our Scottish education that children are given instruction according to their ability—the best instruction possible. I know junior secondary schools which are not as good as we should like. On the other hand, I know others which are performing a first-class job. We have taken a great deal of trouble. Our inspectors recently examined the whole matter and we issued a Report on junior secondary schools which has had a wide circulation and which received a warm reception from the teaching profession. It has been dealt with on the B.B.C. and on films and it has been demanded by countries all over the world. It gives an inspired picture of what can be achieved in this type of school.
I do not say that that is the right and only answer, or that the comprehensive school is the right and only answer. I am merely pleading with the Committee that the variety that has so marked and distinguished Scottish education should not be destroyed now simply because we want one kind of method only and because we are a little troubled about the test.
If hon. Members would assist me in improving the test and making it less of an anxiety I should be exceedingly grateful. It may be that we should have a

little talk about this. I have tried my best to see whether we can improve the test, and I am open to advice. Again, on the ground that we must trust our local authorities, I say that it is not wise or in keeping with Scottish tradition to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the arguments and the whole case which has been put to him. All the speeches which have been delivered were well thought out, and I should have thought he would have realised the point at issue, and that no one was discussing or condemning the junior secondary school as a school. As a matter of fact, I understand that in my constituency the junior secondary schools have done well and have found a method of giving a very good education. Indeed, the teachers in the junior secondary schools which I have in mind have a far better opportunity to give a broad, cultural education than in a school where they are training the children to jump through educational hoops.
The teachers are not subject to working towards a target. That is possible in some parts of Scotland, and there is no doubt that a new type of education is developing which is of a different character. That can be done in a comprehensive school just as in a secondary school. What we are worried about and what people object to is that there comes a time in school life when children are automatically separated into "gentlemen and players" groups in education. The one group are supposed to be the educated group and the others are the "players".
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that children are not the same, that their gifts are not all the same. But they do not fall into two categories alone. Those gifts are widely varied, and a boy who may not be good at Latin or Greek may be the best footballer in the school or the best athlete. His gifts may lie in that direction, but we do not want him to be playing football in a different team because he does not have the same standard in Latin and Greek. We do not want one section of people to be playing Rugby and the others soccer as if it were a class distinction.
There is no reason why people who have to live in the same community should not learn in the same community.


That is the first part of education, that they should grow up and learn and live in the same community. We should not create a class distinction. The whole idea of multilateral or community schools, as I understand it, is that children should live and work together, even though they may be following different educational directions.
I realise that there are great physical problems about creating community schools. It will be noticed that the new Clause does not ask that it should be done immediately but that no scheme shall be approved which
segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups.
In other words, the situation which worries families and parents and probably the children too, is that when the examination takes place one child is sent along one street and another child along another street and "never the twain shall meet." That is wrong from the point of view of the psychology of the children. It is just as wrong as separating children at school into those compelled to apply for free milk because of the poverty of their parents and those who do not need it. It is wrong to make a division among children. They are much more sensitive than grown-ups, and they are much more hurtful to each other.
Although they may be in the same school, living, working and playing together, they may not have the same educational ability. That is our idea of a comprehensive and multilateral school. I am glad to say that I was brought up in such a school. It was not a fee-paying school. I went to school in Edinburgh, and I could have remained there from 5 years of age to university level. That school was as comprehensive as anything that we are asking should be done today. There are schools like that in Scotland today.
It may be that the buildings have to be separated because the children cannot all be contained in one, but there ought not to be this distinction, which is so clear for the public to see, of James on the one side going down the street and Willie, on the other, going up it. We should avoid that, and it is because we on this side of the Committee cannot believe that education can be satisfactory unless the children are educated to be

citizens of the same community that I am bound to say that we must register our feelings in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will have a conversation with the Lord Privy Seal on this matter, because he was the author of the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction in 1943. The Joint Under-Secretary is the first man I have heard who, having had experience of educational administration, denies that there is any great strain for children taking the 11-plus examination.

Mr. Stewart: I said that the statements about the strain had been exaggerated.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman went a good deal further than that. I want him to listen, if he will, to what the Lord Privy Seal said in the Report of 1943. He said :
There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which subjects children at the age of. 11 to the strain of a competitive examination "—
the Lord Privy Seal, of all people, says that there is nothing to be said for it—
on which, not only their future schooling, but their future careers may depend. Apart from the effect on the children, there is the effect on the curriculum of the schools themselves. Instead of the junior schools performing their proper and highly important function of fostering the potentialiaties of children at an age when their minds are nimble and receptive, their curiosity strong, their imagination fertile and their spirits high, the curriculum is too often cramped and distorted by over-emphasis on examination subjects and on ways and means of defeating the examiners.
That is only putting more magniloquently what was said in the recent report made to the Scottish Education Department, an extract from which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) read.
I have a great-nephew. He wrote to me saying, "Mother has promised me a bicycle if I pass the examination." I wrote back to him saying, "What has your father promised you if you fail?" I have never had an answer to that one—and he failed. As the Lord Privy Seal said, nothing can defend a system that drives parents to such means in order to induce their children to do their best on one particular day. It is a totally unfair system. Some children have the examination temperament, and run a little above themselves—

Mr. Stewart: What the right hon. Gentleman says may apply in England,


but it is not what happens in Scotland. This matter is not settled by one examination on one day. As his hon. Friends know perfecly well, the record of the child over the years, the views of his teachers and a great many other things like that, are taken into account. The test on the one day is only one of many criteria.

Mr. Ross: The effects are the same, according to the report.

Mr. Ede: The Joint Under-Secretary could not have been listening while my hon. Friend was reading the report, for which I understood the hon. Gentleman was partly responsible. Let us face the

fact that Britain now needs to keep intellectual activity alive in children for as long as possible. There is nothing more disheartening to a child than to find itself, at this early stage, regarded as among the rejects and not able to have the best opportunities of the educational service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the conversation I have suggested with the Lord Privy Seal, for I am quite certain that he will then take a very different view.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—

The Committee divided : Ayes 94, Noes 152.

Division No. 294.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Holman, P.
Pentland, N.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Frederick


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.



Hobson, C. R.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fell, A.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Fisher, Nigel


Armstrong, C. W.
Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Atkins, H. E.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Freeth, D. K.


Balniel, Lord
Cole, Norman
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Barber, Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gough, C. F. H.


Barter, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch R. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cunningham, Knox
Green, A.


Bidgood, J. C.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Dance, J. C. G.
Gurden, Harold


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Black, C. W.
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Body, R. F.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.




Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maddan, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hornby, R. P.
Marples, A. E.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Teeling, W.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'oh)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Page, R. G.
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Partridge, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kershaw, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vosper, D. F.


Kirk, P. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Leather, E. H. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ramsden, J. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Woollam, John Victor


Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, A. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


McKibbin, A. J.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shepherd, William



Question put and agreed to.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In the Seventh Schedule to the principal Act for the provisions relating to the commencement day as relating to compulsory further education and junior colleges shall be substituted the following provisions :—
The first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty ".—[Mr. G. M. Thomson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the proposed new Clause is to give a definite date for the implementation of the provision in the existing Education Act for the establishment of compulsory further education and junior colleges. I have moved the Clause to find out from the Government their intention with regard to this very important aspect of education.
I have lately been feeling increasingly that we must give a high priority to bringing junior colleges into existence. The trend of events since 1945 and the economic problems of the United Kingdom have made it very important that we should have compulsory part-time education between the ages of 15 and 18, after the minimum school-leaving age. There is no need for me to emphasise how important it is that the United Kingdom should have the greatest amount of skill in its young people. It is desperately important that we should compensate for our loss of physical

wealth by giving ourselves the maximum amount of technical and administrative skill so that we can have the high standard of living that we seek.
In this field of education Scotland has started late. The latest figures show that only 9 per cent. of our young people between the ages of 15 and 18 are receiving some kind of part-time further education, while the English figures are about twice those of Scotland. We have much leeway to make up. The provision for universal part-time junior colleges is in the Education Act. I am frightened that we shall have a repetition of what took place after the First World War. It is more than thirty-five years since this provision was passed by this House and still we are not merely not near it being brought into effect but are without any indication of a definite date.
It would be a pity if the opportunity presented by this Education (Scotland) Bill were to pass without an effort to find out the Government's mind on the matter, to give the Government an opportunity to tell us whether they are thinking of a definite date for the implementation of the provision, and what their plans are for a wider extension of part-time day release education. Nothing could pay greater economic or social dividends to the community than this kind of education, which does more than anything else to create a standard of good citizenship and give our young people an opportunity


to become aware of the fullness of the life that lies ahead of them and to appreciate all the finer things of life. We should make greater progress in this matter than we have done.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) for putting the proposed new Clause on the Paper to give me an opportunity of explaining Government policy. I would point out to him that the form of the Clause would not quite do. Section 144 (3) and the Seventh Schedule of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, provided that Sections 39 to 41 should operate on
Such day as the Secretary of State may appoint being a day not later than three years after the date on which the upper limit of the school age is raised to fifteen.
The upper limit of the school age was raised to 15 on 1st April, 1947. Accordingly, the three Sections were due to come into operation on 1st April, 1950.
Under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1949, for which I think the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was responsible, Section 1 provided that the three Sections should come into operation
on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint, being as early a day as he considers practicable ; and the Seventh Schedule to the said Act … in so far as that Schedule relates to the said sections shall cease to have effect.
The hon. Member's proposed new Clause should have been an Amendment to Section 1 of the Act of 1949, and not to the Seventh Schedule of the Act of 1946.
10.0 p.m.
On the merits of the matter, when the hon. Member speaks to me about this subject he is preaching to the converted. When the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire was in office, I repeatedly asked him when we could start the junior technical colleges. When I was a member of the Advisory Council, we discussed whether it would be wiser to raise the school leaving age to 15 or to introduce junior secondary colleges, and my view and the view of a large number of my colleagues and many of the expert advisers was that the latter would be the wiser course. Therefore, I am absolutely satisfied that it is something which should be done at the earliest possible moment.
When he was in office, the right hon. Gentleman often told me that the difficulty was a practical one. If the new Clause were accepted, we should have to provide in Scotland about 56,000 more places than are at present occupied by those between the ages of 15 and 18 who attend voluntarily. It is a big proposition. It would probably require the expenditure of between £25 and £30 million upon new buildings and the provision of 2,500–3,000 additional teachers. The right hon. Gentleman often said to me, "You see my difficulty?" I invite him to accept the same response from me.
The post-war "bulge" has now entered the schools. The number of children reaching the age of five will for several years yet exceed the number leaving school. The school population is expected to reach a peak about 1961. Thereafter there will be a falling off for a few years, and in 1964 and the following years there will be a levelling off in numbers, sometimes described as the "plateau" following the "peak".

Miss Herbison: "Plateau" is a dangerous word.

Mr. Stewart: That is why I added "peak". We are still going all out to provide the number of secondary schools which will be needed when the bulge moves from primary to secondary education. The number of new schools started is greater than it has ever been in our history. We are also giving priority to the needs of technical education and those who attend voluntarily, a matter very much in the mind of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. I suggest that the proper view to take is that it would be foolish to jeopardise our position in the fields of primary and secondary education by diverting building resources now to the erection of junior colleges. Similarly with staff; we shall be hard pressed to find all the teachers we need to staff the secondary schools in the early 1960s without introducing new demands.
The hon. Member may say "All right. What is your plan?" That is a fair question. This does not mean that the Government question the merit of the policy set out in the 1946 Act. On the contrary, it is their view, and most profoundly my view, that compulsory further education for all young people


should be introduced at the earliest possible date. The Government and my right hon. Friend do not necessarily reject the possibility of making a start in the early 1960s. The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked me to give a date. Under the programme announced in the White Paper on Technical Education, we hope to provide by 1960 some 13,000 extra places in local technical colleges. That is a large number. These places will be available for students attending compulsorily, and I hope they will be used by them.
However, we cannot at present really see—I am being quite frank to the Committee—the exact date by which all the facilities and staff needed can be made available. Therefore, we consider it unwise—this is as far as I want to go—to alter the provisions under which compulsory further education will be introduced at a date to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I hope that my very frank answer to the hon. Gentleman will satisfy him.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his very full statement, in the light of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 47 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In section forty-seven of the principal Act, after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection :—
(1A) In pursuance of the foregoing subsection it shall be the duty of education authorities to ensure that children are taught the values of cleanliness and good manners at table, the importance of balanced diet and good cooking and the arts of housewifery."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think that the wording of the new Clause makes quite clear its intention. I do not propose, therefore, to say a great deal in support of it, except that it follows very largely the same principles that have guided us in our discussions on two previous proposed new Clauses, that we really ought to make some progress in eliminating the social distinctions in our population.
There is a great deal of excitement and alarm in many countries of the world today over the colour bar, but many of us realise perfectly well that inside our own country, while there is not a colour bar there is an educational bar, the bar of manners which separates our population into what Disraeli called the "Two Nations." We have not yet completely bridged the gap between these two nations. It is quite true that when a more charming member of the working class becomes a film star, she gets persona grata entrance into almost any of the ducal palaces, but that does not happen to the people who do the work of this country.
The industrial workers of this country, the people who are miners and engineers, are not accepted as equals any more than the people of a different colour are accepted as equals. That is one of the things which will denude the industry of our country of the best brains, because the whole tendency is for people to get out of those industries in order to be regarded as among the best sections of the population.
I had twenty-five years' experience in industry. I was brought up in that atmosphere. Unless the status of the people who are doing the work of the nation in the productive field, even if they dirty their faces and hands in doing it, is raised and, outside their work, they feel to be the equals of all the other fellows, there will be a continual drain from the ranks of the workers and the best people into jobs which may not be so useful to the population.
A noble Lord was telling me that he was speaking to two miners in Durham who felt that they should be able to use their brains for something better than digging coal and that they could be in some job where they could use their brains to better advantage. He said, "I hope that you are taking a wise decision. After all, when you have finished digging coal your mind is free to develop in the direction that you have been going by the study of economics, history, sociology and other subjects, whereas if you take another job—supposing you think that it is a better job to be an insurance collector—you may spend your day arguing with people at front doors and at the end of the day you will be so exhausted that you will have no inclination to take up any studies at all."
So there is a balance going on in our community. If people have to work with their brains during the day, they may not have the same opportunity of intellectual relaxation as people in industry. What we want to do is to train our people in such a way that when they leave work they can have social contact with their fellows, whether they come from the university, the mine, the railway or the school.
I often think of what Bernard Shaw said when lecturing in Edinburgh on Socialism. He was asked what difference it would make. He said, "I think that it would make this difference. If a man was walking along Princes Street and he saw a lady whom he thought would make a fit and proper mate for him there should be no social or economic barrier to prevent them from becoming man and wife". I think that our population should be on that basis, and that there should not be segregation in the life of the people. There should not be segregation in the life of the people. Most of this starts in the schools, and the schools ought to do something to change it.
I am suggesting that the manners, social habits and speech of the people should be just as important in the schools as is learning the names of rivers at the other end of the earth. In Scotland, we used to pride ourselves that we so taught the three "Rs" that when children left school they were at least "sound in their fundamentals", as the old people used to put it. I agree that there was a great deal to be said for that, but I have a strong feeling that cleanliness, good manners, knowledge of diet and, for girls when they marry, knowledge of how to cook, even art in the home, are just as fundamental to life as a knowledge of Latin and Greek and of some of the classical subjects with which children struggle in school.
I recognise that teachers are alarmed at the prospect of having still further odd jobs put on them which would detract from the time they can spend on their normal subjects. I can appreciate their feeling, but I think this ought not to be an odd job ; it ought to be a fundamental part of the school curriculum that when children are fed at the nation's expense, it should be combined with all the other arts connected with food, such as the art

of setting a table and of decorating the home, table manners and everything which goes to make the man. Good manners make the man.
I have spoken on this theme in the House before, and I will therefore not weary the House by elaborating it now, but I should like this Motion to be accepted in order to bring to the attention of the people in the schools the fact that something should be done to see that all the class distinctions are eliminated in this manner, so that people can meet each other as comrades and friends in any walk of life.

Mrs. Mann: It will be observed that this Clause stands in the name of the male fraternity. No woman Member has put her name to it, although we may not object to it. Although I am supporting it, I believe that it has objectionable features. It is Victorian. It asks that
the importance of balanced diet and good cooking and the arts of housewifery
shall be taught, and it will be noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said, "taught to the girls." Why not to the boys?
All through this Clause man is looking after himself. He is dictating not only that he shall be looked after but that he shall be looked after by woman. I want to point out that those days have long passed. No matter how much a girl may know of housewifery and cooking, that is not what matters in these days. What matters today are her vital statistics—36–24–36. That is what man looks for. Irrespective of all that my right hon. Friend has said, the girl who devotes her education entirely to housewifery has a very poor chance in the marriage market. That may or may not be a good thing, according to one's own ideas about it.
In my opinion, the teaching of housewifery or cooking should not be confined to girls, because the modern young woman today goes out to work. Some of the women work because they have to, because it takes a combined wage to meet the cost of living. I do not want to be offensive to the Front Bench opposite on this subject. It takes the wages of some wives, combined with their husbands' wages, to get the wherewithal necessary to make ends meet. There are others who, before they could get a new hat or a new dress, had to go on hands and knees to a mean-fisted beggar called


a husband before they could get the money, and he had a great deal to say before he handed it over. They go out to work to earn the money instead, and now they go not only for that, but because of the sheer enjoyment of having that little bit of independence, now they have that extra freedom.
10.15 p.m.
Personally, I should prefer an intelligent, well educated mother, groomed in an academic education, to one who had had no education whatever beyond being good at housewifery. She is the kind who will be left at home when her husband goes out to find other more interesting women who can discuss various topics in which he is interested. She gets left far behind.
To return to a more serious aspect of this new Clause, I would remind the Committee of the amount of illness due to uncleanness in our overcrowded areas. It would be interesting to know what the incidence of dysentery is in our schools in Glasgow. I think it may be found that the figures are rather shocking.
Cleanliness is important, but why always put the teaching of everything on the teachers? Why not tell the mothers that they ought to instil cleanliness and hygiene into their children at home? Duty after duty is placed upon the teachers, to the detriment of real education—duties that ought really to be performed at home.
If the new Clause is agreed to I hope it will not be over-emphasised in the schools, but that we shall remember that it is in the home that these subjects ought first to be taught. I hope that the teachers' time will not be too much taken up with teaching them. Where, however, they are taught in school I hope that they will be taught to the boys as well as to the girls. Let the boys be taken for instruction into the cookery room, because when a boy grows up and marries, then, when he and his wife come home at night from work, if he is a man at all, he will go into the kitchen to help her, as she has been helping him to bring in the income.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend was saying that the man always looks after himself. Can we take it that her speech is an example of Mann looking after herself?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I certainly sympathise with the motives which have led the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to move the new Clause, because I know from what he has said on other occasions that he has this matter very much at heart, but I think that he will agree with me when I say, with the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), that this is a problem which ought to begin at home. Cleanliness, like charity, should begin at home.
What the right hon. Gentleman is attempting is to make sure that at school proper care and consideration is given to questions of cleanliness, good manners, housewifery and the like. I have read this new Clause, even the part about cookery and housewifery, as applying to the boys as well as to the girls. On this occasion, I think that we are looking after not only men but women also.
I feel that the regulations and provisions we have already cover the substance of this proposal. As the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire is aware, details of the curricula are covered by regulations which are made under Section 71 of the 1946 Act. The right hon. Gentleman has been familiar with the working of that Section and the most recent code issued under that Section deals with the matters in the proposed new Clause in some detail.
It might help if I quote briefly from Regulation 20 of the Schools (Scotland) Code, 1956 where, under the heading, "Formation of Good Habits in Pupils" it is stated that,
In the conduct of every school from day to day care shall be taken to train the pupils in habits of personal hygiene and cleanliness, of correct speech and good manners.…
and mention is made of the qualities of truthfulness and various matters with which the proposed new Clause is not concerned. The memorandum, "The Primary School in Scotland" also draws the attention of teachers to the need to inculcate at an early age cleanly habits, good manners and the like.

Mr. Woodburn: And table manners.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Good manners would embrace table manners, but in so far as table manners are a subsection of good manners they


have exercised the Department from the time school meals were instituted. It was brought to the notice of teachers at an early stage of the school meals system that the system provided an excellent opportunity for the teaching of good table manners and cleanliness at table in a practical fashion to the children. In addition, the inspectors who inspect school meals take every opportunity to make sure that these recommendations are carried out. Therefore, table manners are very much in the mind of the Department.

Mr. Woodburn: I appreciate what has been done in some schools. It was because of the contrast between the excellent work done in some schools to train children in these matters with what I understand is happening in some other schools that I was anxious to emphasise that school meals should be used as a means of teaching manners. It is in association with the actual eating of meals in schools that so much could be done that is not now being done.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I will certainly bring that to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. These recommendations have been issued with the same object in view as the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it is I think a matter for persuasion rather than for specific statements in a Statute.
As to the importance of a balanced diet, good cooking and the arts of housewifery, these are normally covered in the secondary education of girls. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the secondary courses are subject to the approval of higher authority and it normally provides for these matters in secondary courses. At the moment boys do not receive instruction in the art of housewifery, but I think that a number of them learn a considerable amount about it after they are married.
With all respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, I think that men are not really so stupid as she would have us believe, and that a good cook and a good housewife has a better chance of getting married than the girl with the vital statistics. It may be that the girl with the vital statistics has chances of getting married more frequently, but the girl who is the good housewife has a much better chance of making a permanent marriage.
In view of what I have said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might feel that, having raised the point and brought it to the notice of my right hon. Friend, it might be appropriate to ask leave to withdraw the Motion?

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 68 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

After subsection (1) of section sixty-eight of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection :—
(1A) Provision shall be made in the said order for the appointment by the advisory council of a special committee to advise the Secretary of State on the regulations governing the awards of bursaries, scholarships and grants by local education authorities based on regular annual review which shall be made by the committee.
This special committee shall include representatives of interested educational organisations, student bodies and parent-teacher associations ".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will recall that in Section 68 the Act deals with advisory councils but does not specifically prescribe a committee of this nature for that purpose in the Statute. During the debate on the Education Estimates in June last I made several inquiries of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I received a letter from him telling me that there was a regular review. Whilst I received excellent replies on several other matters, I did not receive an answer to the question raised in this proposed Clause, namely, what is the regular review, how is it conducted, and is it regular in the sense of being conducted annually?
I have put down this proposed Clause in the hope that, if there is no existing machinery, this Clause would enable it to be set up. If there is such machinery existing I hope it will become widely known as a consequence of the Clause having been brought forward tonight.

The Lord Advocate: The matters which are particularly mentioned in this proposed Clause are of great importance, and if it was essential to have it in order


that these matters could be considered by a special committee, we would consider the Clause favourably. However, as the hon. Gentleman and the Committee no doubt know, there is provision in Section 68 of the 1946 Act for setting up a council for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State on educational matters. Now these are educational matters.
In the Second subsection of Section 68, provision can be made for the appointment by the advisory council of special committees. That would give power, where the Secretary of State wished advice on the matters mentioned in this Clause, to have a special committee. It would seem to us to be rather a pity that these matters should be taken out for particular statutory reference and, as it were, should have a special statutory committee for themselves.
No doubt the Committee will recollect that the advisory council submitted a report on education authority bursaries in 1943, and it was in accordance with its recommendation that the Regulations of 1945, and of 1947, to 1955 were framed. So the position is that while we look upon these matters as extremely important, we feel that if the advisory council were revived, a special committee could at any time be set up for inter alia consideration of these matters, it would almost be invidious to give them special statutory precedence. For these reasons, I regret that we cannot accept the Clause.

10.30 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the interests of saving time I made my contribution very short, and I am afraid that the Lord Advocate missed the point. I was trying to say that provision should be made in the order. I am asking that a special committee should be set up to discuss bursaries, scholarships and grants. I have been informed by the Joint Under-Secretary that some sort of mechanism exists, but he has not said what it is, and very few people outside the Department know what it is. It has been said that this mechanism conducts a regular review. I should like to know how regular that review is.
Short of that, I suggest that there ought to be a special committee to take over this mechanism and to conduct a review which is regular and annual. The Lord Advocate referred to the committee

which reported in 1943 on this matter. That was a committee which concerned itself with the principles of the award of bursaries and grants. What many of my hon. Friends, and many people outside this Committee, would like to see is a committee which annually reviews the grants given to students so that we will not have them coming here and treating the issue of the award of adequate grants as a political matter. It ought, like teachers' salaries, to be outside the scope of public political agitation. It ought to be dealt with by proper governmental machinery which looks at the matter and makes recommendations to the House of Commons to see that they are carried out. These are the major points which I do not think the Lord Advocate has dealt with, and I should appreciate a further reply.

The Lord Advocate: I appreciate the points which the hon. Member makes. If the advisory council were reconstituted it would be possible under the present statutory provisions to set up a special committee to deal with these matters. It is really a question whether or not it is desirable to set up a committee for those purposes. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said but. be that as it may, this can be done without any additional statutory regulations—in other words, without putting the new Clause in the Bill.
The new Clause would be invidious. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the Committee to this most important matter, but I ask him to withdraw his Motion. The matter having been fully ventilated, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might feel that the Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Lord Advocate has begged my hon. Friend to withdraw the new Clause now that the matter has been "fully ventilated." I hope that my hon. Friend realises that it has not been fully ventilated. I have heard reference today to the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary was a member of this most noted advisory council some years ago. I, too, was a member of the advisory council which submitted the report on bursaries, and I think I was a member of the sub-committee which made the report to the council on which the ultimate report was based.
A great deal of thought was given to the subject of bursaries in 1943 by the council, but it is difficult to come to a conclusion about bursaries. We have never had an opportunity since then of having a discussion in the House of Commons as to what form the bursaries should take, what machinery should be employed to determine how they should be administered, their extent, and so on. We had no opportunity during the passage of the 1945 Act; we had no opportunity in 1946. This might have been our opportunity, but when one looks at the clock and at the state of the Amendment Paper and bears in mind that this job must be completed tonight, one realises that it is obvious that we are not to have an opportunity to discuss these matters in 1956 either. I do not know when we last had an opportunity. There certainly has not been an opportunity in the fourteen years during which I have been a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend has shown that there is a need to have a regular review of this matter. There is no evidence that there is such a review and we have not had an opportunity of discussing how such a review should be conducted, and what amendment of the Statute, if any, is necessary.
I wish we could have had more time. I wish that I could have had more time to discuss this matter. I repeat that I was a member of the advisory council which issued a report in 1943. We have had no opportunity of discussing these matters in Parliament. This Amendment of the Act passed by the Caretaker Government is the first opportunity given in this House, but the Government, by bringing this forward so late in the Session, have made sure that once again Parliament is denied the opportunity, and education in Scotland is denied the opportunity, of the services of the Scottish Members of Parliament.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my persistence in this matter will be forgiven. I am perfectly willing to co-operate and withdraw the Motion and Clause if the Lord Advocate will augment the information given by the Joint Under-Secretary and say that there is a regular review and some mechanism for carrying out this regular review. I should like to know what is the mechanism and how regular is the review in the process of the departmental work. Neither of these questions

has been answered and I do not feel inclined to withdraw until I get a reasonable answer to those very fair questions.

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps I might explain shortly to the Committee what is the present practice, call it a review or whatever one will. It is to collect information about bursar's outlays and publish our regulations in draft. This affords an opportunity for interested parties to comment on any proposals made and amendments are made where reasonable.
For example, my hon. Friend had a meeting with the Scottish Union of Students. I have not the actual date when that took place. The regulations are also subject to debate in this House if a Prayer against them is put down. That is the present practice. The information is gathered together departmentally, and when it comes out in the form of regulations an opportunity is given for comment and my hon. Friend has meetings. I think that will give the Committee at least the overall picture of what happens today, without the particular detail which the hon. Member raised.

Mr. Ross: Surely the practice outlined by the Lord Advocate is the very thing to which we object and what we want to get away from. As I understand it, the desire of my hon. Friend is to replace that very clumsy and rather invidious procedure. It is not very pleasant for Members of Parliament, nor, I am sure, for the Secretary of State, to be badgered every year or eighteen months on the basis of political influence to do this, that or the other thing, for students or for other people. There should be a committee dealing with this matter that would come between the Secretary of State and the students concerned.
I understood the Lord Advocate to say that there was such a committee and that there was no need for this additional piece of legislation. He now says that there is no such committee. It does not meet. It is all a collection of information, made in some way or another about which we do not know, regarding the expenses of students. The Secretary of State draws up regulations which, like all other regulations, are open to the usual kind of advice which he gets ; and eventually they come before this House to be dealt with. We want to get away from that.


This is an eminently sensible proposal and we have no reason for turning it down.

Miss Herbison: I hope that the Lord Advocate and the other Scottish Ministers will give some further thought to this matter. The Lord Advocate said that under Section 68 of the 1946 Act—that is, the Section dealing with advisory councils—the Secretary of State can, if he so desires, set up a sub-committee of the advisory council to deal with this matter. My hon. Friend has tried to find out from the Lord Advocate what obtains at present, but I do not think that any of us is very clear about it from the Lord Advocate's answer.
It seems to me that he spoke about draft regulations. What happens before the Secretary of State makes those regulations? We know what happens afterwards. They go out to interested bodies, and comments are asked for on them. Then the Secretary of State decides what line he will take. Surely it is a very simple thing for the Lord Advocate to give us an assurance tonight that if the new Clause is not necessary at least the Secretary of State will reconstitute the advisory council and give it a remit because, according to Section 68, that is what happens.
Again, according to subsection (2) of that Section, the advisory council may set up a committee to deal with some special aspect of educational matters. Bursaries and grants are a special aspect of educational matters, and the subsection says that this committee will be formed partly of persons on the advisory council.
and the remainder shall be persons having special knowledge or experience of the subjects of the respective remits …
It seems to me that those things which are being asked for in the proposed new Clause give an idea at least of the type of people whom we think ought to go on to this committee.
All we are asking from the Lord Advocate now is that if he cannot accept the Clause he will at least give us an assurance tonight that the advisory council will be reconstituted—because here is a most important job for it to do—and that immediately it is reconstituted a remit will be given to it to set up a committee to deal with this matter.

The Lord Advocate: We have listened with great interest to all that has been said by hon. Members opposite on this matter and will give it the most anxious consideration afterwards, but I cannot here and now commit my right hon. Friend either to reconstitute the advisory council or, if he did so, to set up any particular sub-committee. The substance of what has been said tonight will be most anxiously considered, but I am not in a position to give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Lady.

Mr. T. Fraser: We cannot accept that answer. This is the only opportunity we have had for very many years to discuss the state of our educational legislation for Scotland. We have not had the advisory council—upon the existence of which the Lord Advocate depended in his first reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon)—for a number of years ; the body upon which both the Joint Under-Secretary and I were members at one time. We ought to have it.
If we had a Government which had any interest at all in public education in Scotland we would have this council. It is because we have a Government with no interest in this subject that we have not got it at present. We shall not allow this matter to pass this evening without the Government giving us some assurance that the advisory council will be reconstituted and that this matter will be the subject of consideration by that council. The Lord Advocate is not able to say that he cannot commit his right hon Friend ; the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench looking after the Bill are the spokesmen for the Government at this time.
10.45 p.m.
There are at the moment three Scottish Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench. Surely three Scottish Ministers can take it upon themselves, if they think it a reasonable request by the Opposition, to give an undertaking that the advisory council will be reconstituted. If the Government do not intend to have the advisory council reconstituted, they should have put down an Amendment to take out Section 68 of the 1946 Act. Then they would be saying that as they were not going to reconstitute the advisory council there was no point in leaving Section 68 in the Act which we are amending by this Bill.
Therefore, let the Lord Advocate or the Joint Under-Secretary tell us now, if they want to make progress, that the advisory council will be reconstituted and that the matter will be seriously examined. The Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate the time, thought and study given to this matter by the advisory council in 1943 and will know that this House has not given any time or study to the matter since we had that Report.
I should like to have had the opportunity of giving some thought and consideration to the matter, but there is no such opportunity to do so at this late stage in the Parliamentary Session. However, there is time for the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate to give us an assurance that after thirteen years the advisory council will be enabled to have another look at the matter.
I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, and I hope that the Ministers do not either. They can facilitate its proceedings if they will only give us the assurance for which my hon. Friend so reasonably asked, namely, that the advisory council will be reconstituted.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and I were, of course, members of the advisory council in the early days. He is quite right when he says that we gave considerable thought to this very business of bursaries and issued a Report in 1943 or thereabouts. That Report laid down a policy which we have been following ever since and which, in fact, is reflected in the Regulations that we issued in 1945, 1947 and 1955. There has been no alteration in the policy. If the Secretary of State for Scotland should require further advice on bursary policy then, of course, a further remit to the advisory council would indeed be given.
As the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) knows, I have met the students more than once. We had some very pleasant meetings and the students put their problems to me. Incidentally, when I invited them to send me cases of difficulty, the only case they sent me was that of a law student, the point which we discussed earlier on. I am very ready to meet the students again.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not think that the advisory council should be reconstituted to discuss policy, but to discuss

the regulations based on the present policy. That, I think, is where the confusion arises. As we know, we had amendments of the Regulations in 1947 based on the 1943 declaration, in 1949, 1953 and 1955. How were these arrived at? My contention is that they ought to have been arrived at by a committee of this nature objectively reviewing the facts as they became available and that regulations ought to have been made on its findings and not, I suggest, on the departmental mechanism as suggested by the Lord Advocate.
I thought that there was actually some committee in existence, but that does not appear to be the case. Departmental officials should solicit information and frame regulations based on that information. That, as I see it, is the problem. It is not a new bursary policy which we want, but rather a committee which will look at the administration regulations in the light of changing events.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I understand and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, but, with respect, I really do not think—and I put it to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—that this is a matter to be referred to the advisory council. In 1943 the council did not attempt to go into the detail, the minutiae, of the matter and I do not think we should ask it to do that in the future.
There is no evidence that the policy behind the regulations is in question; I do not think it is. There has been criticism of the amounts and allowances, but those are matters of detail which are not suitable for reference to the advisory council. We take great care—it has been my personal job—to inquire into the actual costs that have to be met by students. It is not a case of snooping around asking for things sub rosa. We have gone to the university and to the various hostels, and we have found out the costs and brought all the facts together. There is no reason to hide them. We believe that our figures correspond roughly to the needs of the students.
On the broader question of the advisory council being brought into active existence, that matter can only be decided if we make up our minds that something ought to be inquired into. I do not see at the moment—although the situation may change in a matter of a


month or two—any problem of the kind which the advisory council would be suitable to examine. As soon as we are confronted with a problem that needs examination by that peculiarly well-equipped body we will at once reconstitute it and ask it to help us. I have the greatest respect for the advisory council as I know the splendid work it has done. It is something that we should put into operation again as soon as necessary. I only ask the Committee to believe we do not see a suitable topic.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State does not seem to appreciate that we have spent the whole day in Committee on an Education Bill to alter the law of education in Scotland. If this is not a topic for the advisory council there never was a topic. We ought not to have had the Bill without advice from the council as to the law of education for Scotland. If the Joint Under-Secretary thinks that there is no aspect of education, especially of bursaries, which could be examined by the advisory council, perhaps I might refresh his memory.
In 1943 we gave very careful consideration to whether bursaries should continue to be administered by education committees or to be under central control. We do not know whether we could trust all the education authorities in Scotland to give bursaries where they were needed. If young people have the aptitude to continue their further education they should be enabled so to do. We have been told of cases in recent years of young people gaining admission to universities to participate in the higher education only if they could get bursaries from the local authorities.
We ought to have machinery so that further education could go on. Are the recommendations that we came to in 1943 still the provisions which we should operate? We have to consider whether the disappointed applicant for a bursary should not have some right of appeal, and to whom. These matters have been put before the Joint Under-Secretary by students and by Members of Parliament, but the matter has never been inquired into at all. If there is a matter which is suitable for inquiry by the advisory council—in the Joint Under-Secretary's words—these are such matters, and the

Secretary of State for Scotland should not hesitate to reconstitute the advisory council.
Any hon. Member who is at all interested in Scottish education must know that there are many matters arousing considerable anxiety, and some arousing considerable controversy, in Scottish education at present which badly need some independent, objective inquiry. An advisory council seems to be the appropriate instrument. It is lamentable that we have been carrying on for a number of years without the assistance of an advisory council. In the light of the further information which I have just given, there is a clear case for one. The matter is of such importance that it warrants the attention of an advisory council.
Some of the things which I have mentioned are well within the knowledge of the Joint Under-Secretary. They are matters of great importance to Scottish education if we are to make the best of the raw material that we have, the young people leaving our secondary schools. The bursaries of the young people now attending the secondary schools will be determined in the way I have stated. It is high time that we had the matter of bursaries investigated again.
There are many other educational matters which should be investigated by an advisory council. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will say that the advisory council will be reconstituted at no distant date. That is not too much to promise us. My view is that there should always be an advisory council in being to which the Secretary of State could remit a matter at comparatively short notice, instead of his having to collect names and set up a council when he has a matter to be investigated.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I accept the assurance of the Lord Advocate that there are already sufficient statutory provisions. and, hoping that the Scottish Ministers will listen earnestly to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(FURTHER AMENDMENT OF S. 20 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

At the end of section twenty of the principal Act (which lays down requirements as to premises of educational establishments) there shall be inserted the following subsection :—
(4) With a view to securing that the premises, furnishing and equipment of schools are maintained in such a condition as to contribute to the safety of the pupils, it shall be the duty of the education authority to cause their appropriate officers as part of their ordinary work from time to time to inspect and to report to them on the said premises, furnishing and equipment having special regard to any structural defects or damage or decay such as to cause risk of injury to the pupils, and where any danger to the physical safety of the pupils is reported the education authority shall take immediate action to end it".—[Mr. Hannan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy-Chairman: The following new Clause relating to health matters may be discussed at the same time

Mr. Hannan: Thank you, Sir Rhys. The same principle is involved in each case.
11.0 p.m.
The purpose of the proposed new Clauses is to elicit some information from the Government as to whose responsibility it is to carry out repairs and alterations and emergency health measures. The new Clauses are designed to strengthen the provisions of the Act. By subsection (3), the only duty at present placed on the local authority is :
it shall be the duty of an education authority to cause their medical officers as part of their ordinary work from time to time to inspect and to report to them upon the said premises, furnishing and equipment, and in making the said inspections the medical officers shall have special regard to the lighting, heating and ventilation, and to the sanitary arrangements 
Merely to ask the inspector to report on these conditions is, in our view, not sufficient. We think it should be expressly stated what action is to be taken and by whom.
A case has occurred recently in my constituency of Maryhill, where there is a school with appalling conditions of sanitation. These are known to the local authority, but the correspondence which has ensued between the local authority and the Department is of such a character that time is passing while the conditions

continue to deteriorate and while the children run great risks of infection and suffer deteriorating health standards.
I raised this matter in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Health, and the Joint Under-Secretary dealing with the matter sent me a reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) had made the point that lack of proper sanitation in schools was responsible for deteriorating standards of health. I followed him in the debate and stated that my information was that in some instances in Glasgow dysentery has been caused by the evil sanitation conditions.
I have been informed by the Joint Under-Secretary, in respect of this school at Maryhill, that work costing £5,000 or more cannot be carried out without permission. The difficulty is to pinpoint responsibility and to know how far the local authority can go ahead to deal with these matters and when it must seek Ministry sanction. If the Joint Under-Secretary can help to clear these matters up we shall be grateful. That is part of the purpose of tabling the new Clauses.
In the school health service report of Glasgow, the Chief Officer states that there were 144 school visits, that in 27 cases there was nothing to report and that in 60 of the remaining cases—over 50 per cent.—there were defects in w.c.s and other lavatories. I will not go through the report—I am anxious to save time—but that alone should be sufficient to make the Government pay serious attention to the conditions of sanitation in schools. These Clauses have been tabled so that we may see what the position is and how far powers extend to local authorities to proceed in these matters in order to rectify the defects.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has raised one or two matters of considerable importance. He referred to the duty of the medical officer to inspect, particularly ventilation, lighting, heating, etc., and to report. What the hon. Member wanted to know was the responsibility of the local authority. The overriding responsibility, quite apart from any Statute, is the common law responsibility to keep premises safe, so far as the health and physical condition of the children there are concerned. The


local authorities have that common law responsibility, which on the whole I think they carry out well.
In addition to that the Secretary of State and the Department of Education, in circulars which they have issued in recent years, have drawn particular attention to the matters with which the hon. Member is most concerned. There are the minimum standards for school building which were laid down in Circular 268 of 1953, and there the provision of lavatories, cloakrooms and the like is laid down in specific terms.
Of course, that does not apply to the older chools, but in Circular 296 of 4th December, 1954, the question of the older and unsatisfactory schools was again dealt with, and the points with which the hon. Member is particularly concerned were particularly referred to. It states that
so far as practicable education authorities should aim at bringing all schools which are not to be replaced in the foreseeable future up to the standards of acommodation laid down for new schools in Circular 268.
That is the one I referred to just now.
While recognising that they could not do everything to bring buildings up to date in view of the building programmes, the Secretary of State asked education authorities to give special consideration to proposals for providing where necessary better and more adequate staff accommodation and more modern and sufficient cloakrooms and lavatories for pupils. These matters have been very forcibly brought to the notice of the education authorities.

Mr. Woodburn: I have another new Clause down relating to this subject and Section 3 of the principal Act, and to save the necessity of my moving it, would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether what he has said applies to washing and drying facilities?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, it covers washing. The scale of washbasins is laid down in Circular 268.

Mr. Woodburn: And towels?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Not towels. It deals only with physical structure.
As for drying facilities, although there is no specific mention of them, there is provision about the spacing of pegs in cloakrooms which, indirectly, affects that

matter ; but it is not dealt with specifically, although I think that the Secretary of State would have power to do so by further circular if it became necessary.
As to the question of who can start and when, the position is that the limit is, as the hon. Member thought, £5,000. If the cost of the improvements does not exceed £5,000, then the education authority can go ahead. If the cost is over £5,000, then they are subject to approval, and the policy is to grant approval where the accommodation, the cloakroom accommodation and the like, is clearly inadequate. In a bad case, or in even a reasonably bad case—if a case can be "reasonably bad"—approval will be granted, even though the amount involved is over £5,000.
I have no knowledge of the improvements at the school to which the hon. Member particularly referred, but I am sure the Joint Under-Secretary of State will look into that, and get into touch with the hon. Member. The duties are there already, and for that reason I think that the new Clauses are unnecessary.

Mr. Hannan: The discussion has cleared up one or two points and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(STUDENTS' REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL.)

The Secretary of State shall require the governing bodies of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, the central institutions and the teachers' training colleges in Scotland to lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of a students' representative council ensuring that each council—

(1) is elected annually by a secret ballot of the matriculated students ;
(2) promotes the interests of the students ;
(3) represents the students of the college in relations with the students of other colleges and of the universities ; and
(4) acts on the recognised means of communication between the students and the college authorities on academic and other matters affecting the students.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I referred to this matter at length on Second Reading. The intention is simply to formalise the existing students' representative councils which are unofficial in character and in other cases to recognise


the constitution of councils in the various institutions. I am prepared to elaborate any point of doubt which the Minister may have, and I do not necessarily think that the wording of the proposed new Clause is the best. I should be quite willing to co-operate if the Minister suggested that the matter should be taken up at some other stage in the progress of the Bill.
Like a patient who has been given an overdose of drugs from time to time, I have become habituated to the overdoses of sympathy that I have received from the Minister on various occasions, but here is an occasion where, quite apart from what I am sure is his genuine sympathy with the case, the Joint Under-Secretary can make a concession without imposing any serious obligation on the Treasury, any great strain on the Department or any distortion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman would be doing a very great justice to himself if he were responsible for the acceptance of the Clause. I am certain that this provision must come, if not this year then in the next decade, and it would not be a very great advance in foresight for the hon. Gentleman to accept it at this juncture.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As one former member of a students' representative council to another, I must tell the hon. Member that I understand the object of the Clause. When he spoke on Second Reading, the hon. Member gave only one example of the trouble that seems to be in his mind. He said that one S.R.C. was abolished by a principal of a college because it questioned his authority and opinion in a matter concerning the government of the college. We have no knowledge of that. We had never heard of it until the hon. Member mentioned it, not even from the students. My experience of these councils is that if there is anything worrying the members they soon tell us. Therefore, I feel it difficult to believe that there is a great demand for this proposal, even though the hon. Member may feel passionately about it.
I advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion because, as his right hon. Friends know, this is not a matter to which we could agree without consulting the universities, institutions and students' representative councils. If the hon. Member would like us to inquire of these bodies to ascertain whether there is any

demand, I will gladly undertake to do so, but it would be quite improper to accept the Clause—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The answer is that 21 students' representative councils have unanimously made this request, and they have had the support of the four university S.R.C.s, which alone are statutorily recognised in Scotland. The student bodies are unanimous, and have been so on three occasions to my knowledge. Universities are not concerned with consultation. That is a matter for the college authorities some of which have responded very satisfactorily to the councils in that they are willing to consider the actual regulations. There is no need for consultation. The Clause can be passed without difficulty being encountered from the colleges, because its implementation would be carried out by amending articles in various charters, which could be done by the various college boards themselves sending them to the Department for final approval within the terms of the Clause.
We obviously could not contact the students' councils between now and the Report stage of this Bill, but I do assure the Joint Under-Secretary of State that what I have been saying has been only in an endeavour to co-operate with him. If this was agreed, all the colleges could amend their charters, and I am certain that he will recognise that these are but the minimum terms for any free students' councils in any country. He is himself an old S.R.C. man and knows as well as I do that what I have said is the true position.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am trying to co-operate with the hon. Member and I will say here and now that I hope that he will convey to the S.R.C.s the fact that I shall be glad to meet them in order to discuss this matter.

Miss Herbison: I apologise for intervening again, but what the Joint Under-Secretary has said is not good enough. What we are asked to do is to withdraw this Clause in order that there might be consultation ; but if this Bill had been brought in earlier in this Session or if, for reasons best known to the Government that could not have been done, it had been kept until next Session, then we could have had adequate time. There


would have been adequate time between the Committee and Report stages for these consultations.
After all, we ask for nothing out rageous, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State would have difficulty in giving my hon. Friends any reason at all why anybody should have any objection to the modest demands which are in this Clause. So far, the Joint Under-Secretary has not given a single reason. He has said that my hon. Friend gave only one reason during the Second Reading of the Bill; but that is one reason more than we have had in reply from the Joint Under-Secretary in opposing this new Clause. When we tried to probe the reason why this change was not being made in the 1946 Act, we were simply not told.
Can the Joint Under-Secretary point out anything in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (4) that might be likely to cause disagreement on the part of anybody? The Government has put us in the position of having no time at all between this stage and the Report stage of the Bill in which we might have consultations, and the Joint Under-Secretary has given no reason for his attitude tonight.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the Joint Under-Secretary's willingness to meet the representatives of the students' councils on this matter, I beg—

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend will allow me, and anticipating what he was going to say, may I ask him what benefit that will be?

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Clause cannot be withdrawn if there is a speech on it.

Mr. Ross: I am merely trying to help my hon. Friend before he does anything that is irrevocable. Tomorrow is the day for the Report stage and Third Reading and, after that, the Bill will be law. When will there be a further chance of legislation on this matter?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There are wiser heads than mine, apparently, and I shall accept my hon. Friend's advice and not withdraw the Clause.

Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 3 OR PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In subsection (1) of section three of the principal Act after the word "training", where it first occurs, the words "and cleanliness" shall be inserted ; and for the words "that purpose" the following words shall be substituted : "these purposes the Education Authority shall provide in a manner to be approved by the Secretary of State adequate washing and drying facilities and".—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should not have moved this Motion had I received a satisfactory reply on the discussion on a previous new Clause, but I gather that there was a misunderstanding. This provision does not refer to laundry facilities. The Solicitor-General for Scotland seemed to think that I was dealing with the pupils' washing, but this refers to the problem which arises in schools when children wash in cold water and do not have facilities for drying their hands in the winter months. That causes great distress to many little children.
What I wanted was some assurance that something is being done about this. It looks trivial, but from the point of view of the children it is not. Everybody knows how unpleasant it is for children when their skin cracks because they have been unable to dry their hands properly. Are proper facilities to be installed at an early date?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean facilities for drying wet clothes. I referred to cloakroom pegs where children can hang their wet clothes. So far as I know, what he has suggested is not covered in terms by the existing regulations or circulars. I will certainly bring this point to the notice of my right hon. Friend and perhaps find out in more detail what the present practice is. I am afraid I cannot go into detail now, but it is certainly a matter which could be inquired into.

Mr. Woodburn: If a manuscript Amendment is necessary tomorrow in the name of the Secretary of State, we will give it every facility.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Amendment made : In page 11, line 19, after "thirty-six", insert :
in subsection (6) after the words 'was made' there shall be inserted the words 'or amended', and ".—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, to leave out paragraph (c).
I move the Amendment because I want an adequate explanation of the intentions of the Government. I want to know what is behind this insistence on putting in the new paragraph (c). Section 88, as amended, simply states that it will be lawful for an education authority to pay such reasonable expenses incidental to the proper discharge of their duties of a teacher or someone in connection with education, and it adds that such expenses may include
contributions to any association of education authorities concerned in the consideration of educational questions.
That is really in paragraph (a) of Section 88.
Paragraph (b) is easy to understand. It refers to
travelling and other expenses necessarily incurred by a teacher or other officer of the education authority with the approval of that authority in the performance of, or for the purpose of, his functions as a teacher or officer, as the case may be; and … 
Then we come to what I consider is a rather wide power to give to an education authority because, referring back to the "teachers" in paragraph (b) which can be interpreted as meaning any teacher at all, it empowers the local authority to pay
expenses of removal and of the temporary accommodation of any such teacher or officer ordinarily resident in the area of another education authority who has been appointed to the service of the authority concerned.
I want to know what the Government have in mind in this connection. This power is wide enough to permit the poaching of teachers. There is a scarcity of teachers. Supposing that Glasgow advertised that it was prepared to accept teachers from another area and that it would pay all the expenses of removal and their temporary accommodation until such time as they were able to assist them to get a house. That might well prove an attraction for certain people.
When I was a teacher before the war I resided in Aye, which was the area of another education authority, but I taught in Glasgow. I did not suggest to Glasgow that I should change my affections and teach in Ayr unless -they did something towards paying my expenses of removing to Glasgow. There may well be some reasonable explanation and circumstances in which that might be permissible and worthy of support. But to give these general powers to authorities is to go pretty wide and may well open the way to certain practices not at all desirable or for the benefit of Scottish education and harmony between education authorities.
It may well be that there is some simple explanation which I have so far omitted. But this proposal refers simply to Section 88, and I shall be interested to hear what the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate has to say about narrowing the circumstances in which they think this provision will work.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is nothing strange about this. It is a perfectly straightforward proposal with the object of which I should have thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would be in agreement. In faraway places like the Orkneys and Shetlands they had difficulty in getting teachers, and in the past, since they have had no power to do so, authorities have asked for ad hoc authority from the Secretary of State for permission to pay travelling expenses—the removing, etc. We are trying to regularise that and put it in order.
I agree that if one looks at this provision with the eagle eye of the hon. Member, it is possible to conceive that we might be doing something different. But that is all we mean, and I assure the hon. Member that, in the views of the draftsmen, this is the way to express our desire.

Mr. Ross: I agree that it is desirable, but it is not a question of what the Department means or the Government mean. It is the fact of what it will permit. This is not limited to faraway counties. It is open to any authority to utilise the provision.

Mr. Stewart: The intention is that the regulations dealing with the expenses of removal and temporary accommodation


of teachers should define the circumstances in which the power may be exercised, and will restrict the exercise of the power to cases in which education authorities are not able to get teachers to apply for posts because of exceptional heavy costs of removal and the difficulty of obtaining accommodation.

Miss Herbison: We can be certain, then, that this provision will not be used for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend. As the Joint Under-Secretary will know, there is one local authority in Scotland which used to pay £50 a year more. In that way, when there was a plentiful supply of teachers, it took only teachers with the very best certificates. Because we were afraid that there would be poaching, we felt that there must be some other explanation about this provision. Of course, if the regulations specify that it will be used only in cases like the Orkneys and Shetlands we should consider it a very good provision. If, on the other hand, some education authorities tried to exert influence on the Secretary of State to make it apply to them because they were in difficulty for certain reasons, it seems to me that the Secretary of State would have great difficulty in resisting such pressure because of the wording of paragraph (c). Is not that the case?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I quite agree with the hon. Lady. It would never do to allow poaching, and we do not think that that will be allowed. The amendment does not, of itself, empower education authorities to pay the removal expenses of teachers moving from one education area to another. Section 88 empowers education authorities to pay such reasonable expenses incidental to the proper discharge of their duties as may be sanctioned by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) gives examples of the kind of expenses which may be authorised by the regulations. I am sure that the hon. Lady will keep her eyes open to see that none of the unfortunate things to which reference has been made happen.

Mr. Ross: We have now to depend upon the declared intention of the Government to bring in regulations limiting this provision to special areas and to special circumstances in those areas. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 49, at the end to insert :
In section one hundred and eight, in subsection (1) the definition of 'Service' shall be omitted.
The purpose of the Amendment is to relieve us from certain embarrassments in regard to the word "Service." The Committee will remember that in the recent Teachers (Superannuation) Act the definition of "Service" was carried on from the 1952 Scheme, but the Amendment will release it again and the definition will in future be able to be provided in regulations. The Committee may at the same time consider the very last Amendment, in the Second Schedule, on page 13, line 22, which is consequent upon this one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, after "(1)", to insert :
for the definition of 'Central Institution' there shall be substituted the following definition—
Central Institution" means an educational establishment for the provision of further education recognised as a central institution by regulations made by the Secretary of State ;' and ".
This and the next two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend were designed to meet the proposal put to the House during the Second Reading debate by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). We thought that proposal a very sound one, and we have taken the opportunity of putting it in the form of words advised by the draftsmen. If the right hon. Gentleman will be so kind as not to move his Amendment, on the assurance that the three Amendments that I am moving meet his case, we can perhaps go forward.

Mr. Woodburn: I thank the Minister for having done that and also for drafting the Amendments so that they fit in properly with the Bill. I was not concerned with the particular words but with the simplification of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 12, leave out lines 32 to 39.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made : In page 13, line 12, column 3, at end insert "The Sixth Schedule ".

In page 13, line 22, at end, insert :


4 &amp; 5Eliz.2c. 53
The Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1956.
In section thirty-two, paragraph (2).

[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

SLUM HOUSES (PAYMENTS)

11.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move,
That the Housing (Payments for Well-Maintained Houses) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, be approved.
The 1936 Housing Act provided two bases on which payments might be made to the owners or occupiers of slum houses which had nevertheless been well maintained. The second of those bases measured the amounts which might reasonably have been spent on such a house over the previous five years by the yardstick of its rateable value.
The Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act which was passed this year provided for the Minister, by Order, to alter the multiples by which rateable value is multiplied for the purpose which I have mentioned. The Order which is before the House accordingly multiplies each of the two multipliers by three, that is to say, it increases the multiplier from 1½ to 4½ in the case of the landlord and from three to nine in the case of the owner-occupier.
The reason for that is very briefly stated ; that is, that since 1939, or, rather, since the date of the Housing Act, 1936, cost of maintaining a house has roughly increased three times. It is probable that today the building costs are somewhat more than three times what they were in 1939, but one has to bear in mind that the purpose of these payments is to compensate for what has been spent over the previous five years.
Taking the average of building costs over the last Ave years it is not unreasonable to take three as the multiple by which those costs have increased as compared with before the war. Therefore, if the multipliers in the 1936 Act are increased threefold, the landlord or the owner-occupier will be put back into the same position in which the principal Act intended that he should be.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.